FreeBSD: an Open Source Alternative to Linux

“The objective of this whitepaper is to explain some of the features and benefits provided by FreeBSD, and where applicable, compare those features to Linux. This paper provides a starting point for those interested in exploring open source alternatives to Linux.”

Let me state that BSD license in my view are not free Software and are not Open source. The FSF and OSI the certification body for both terms are in dsagreement with me , but no one can explain to me in realistic terms how can something wich can be switched to the opposite of Open Source and free software be the same as those that stay all the time Free software and Open Source. The BSD is a Traitor license as it allow the taking and restriction of the use of the code by one individual for is own purpose only , from then on your not allowed to use , modify or even look at the code.

This paper is a piece of crap , for one the BSD license is not a license , it give no usage guidelines and give absolutely no rights , its a protection clause that got called a license by some people and others since then perpetuate this lie.

1. ” Linux itself is a kernel. Distributions ”

Thats half right Linux is the name of the kernel the OS ( software Desktop and kernel ) is called GNU/Linux

“FreeBSD is a complete operating system”

No , since most of the desktop and tools they use are not from BSD. BSD based distribution is more like it.

2. there is 1 FreeBSD project with 300 small company there are over one thousand ( 1000 ) GNU/Linux distributions with over 1 million company working on GNU/Linux.

3. No , BSD is not under the BSD license :

“FreeBSD also uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.”

“The driving philosophy behind the GPL is to ensure that code remains Open Source”

No , its that it remains Free Software , Open Source happen to be one of the quality to be a free software ( as in freedom ).

“it does this by placing restrictions on the distribution of GPLd code. ”

There is no restriction on the distribution , there is enforcement from switching to another traitor license and from closing it for all others who might whant to use it after you added something to it , its called defendse of rights and freedom.

“means that many operating systems, such as Apple OS X are based on FreeBSD code. ”

Many for me and the english dictionnary means more then one …

“It also means that if you choose to use BSD licensed code in your own projects, you can do so without threat of future legal liability.”

All those BSD and Apple lawsuit are solved , no problem your honor you cant be sued for using a BSD license !!! too bad reality is otherwise. Not even SCO is dumb enough to attack the GPL in court , had it been BSD …

Funny fact is Linus Thorvalds would have considered BSD back in 1991 if it where not for the huge amount of people getting sued for using it …

I agree with this. The BSD license gives more freedom in the sense that you can do basically anything you want with the code.

>”means that many operating systems, such as Apple OS X are based on FreeBSD code. ”

“Many for me and the english dictionnary means more then one … ”

Yes, there is many. Since you pointed a link to wikipedia, I’m surprised you didn’t see the FreeBSD article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Derivatives which clearly lists 14 seperate projects that are based on FreeBSD. So yes, many does mean more than one. Apple OS X was just an example.

“The BSD license gives more freedom in the sense that you can do basically anything you want with the code. ”

You obviously dont know the BSD license , as an example I can take Mandriva , Red Hat , Suse , Ubuntu , Knoppix , etc code and use it for my own distribution , now since BSD is more freedom one can take Apple code and do as he wish with it and improve it right ? ( The answer is aboslutely not … )

“Yes, there is many”

No , but thats not the point its a white paper , your not supposed to give example , your supposed to name them all on both side to make your point. Thats why this whitepaper is incomplete its biased bulshit from the start.

“Darwin borrows heavily from FreeBSD”

Thats not FreeBSD as it not contributing to or contributing back to the project … “thief” , borrow for me is with having intent to return it or something back to it …

All the rest are the same , they take only and dont contribute back anything , most of them are built of GNU/Linux project so they disqualify as pure FreeBSD projects anyway.

Thats essentially why GNU/Linux cant be the same as FreeBSD and FreeBSD cant be an alternative to GNU/Linux. Everyone in GNU/Linux contribute back and everyone can take what it needs from everyone else. thats True and Real Freedom.

First rule of freedom is your right start at you and stop at the beginnings of those of others , otherwise its not freedom its anarchy where you can do everything you whant without responsability or consequence , Freedom is something given and protected by others and yourself by free people otherwise anyone born on the planet would be free people( its not the case sadly).

what this idiot call restriction , I call a protection of a right given to all who use GNU/Linux , you received that right protect it and respect it for others.

My answer is no FreeBSD cannot be a replacement for GNU/Linux , it as les software , less hardware support , less Freedom , less rights given.

– Moulinneuf

2005-08-11 10:39 pm

This Moulinneuf guy is either completely hilarious or a complete retard. Can’t figure out which. Or maybe one of the most successful trolls I’ve seen.

First rule of freedom is your right start at you and stop at the beginnings of those of others , otherwise its not freedom its anarchy where you can do everything you whant without responsability or consequence , Freedom is something given and protected by others and yourself by free people otherwise anyone born on the planet would be free people( its not the case sadly)

It’s very clear that Molinneuf’s ideas about freedom are very different from rational, freedom loving people. But that’s typical of communists like him.

Moluinneuf and Richard Stalin telling us what freedom is about is like Hitler telling people what freedom is about.

> My answer is no FreeBSD cannot be a replacement for GNU/Linux , it as les software , less hardware support , less Freedom , less rights given.

It gives *more* rights. Quoting Theo de Raadt:

“Software […] must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.”

Otherwise, FreeBSD will soon have better hardware support since they are starting to include binary drivers in their system (like… hmm… I wonder who came with this idea first ? Not the we-love-freedom-but-still-we-want-video-acceleration Linux community, of course.)

Who do you think where the first to split from xfree when it changed license ? BSD ? , oh wait they still use that , its not because some commecial GNU/linux vendor make it more integrated that everyone does it as default , most of them push the Free version first when one is availaible.

You can bulshit all you whant , your best hope is Apple

and its screwing your community everyday , we have more then one multinationnal to fall back on and they are not out to screw us , they add to the pool of software not take from it and remove access to there improvements.

You can take Apple code that is licensed under the BSD license and use it for whatever you wish, yes. However, the code that they have written themselves (GUI/window manager, iTunes, whatever) is not BSD-licensed. What’s the problem? Oh, wait … it’s not GPL, therefore it’s complete garbage and thievery, right?

As for you having been proven wrong … do you perhaps remember that BSD thread here about 6 months ago that you went on a rage in? You started frothing about the GPL and its freedoms and how the BSD license is evil, and you were told to STFU more than once. Not only that, but every single one of your points was refuted by at least three people. You conveniently twisted people’s statements to suit your tastes, or perhaps deliberately misunderstood them (your grasp of English isn’t top-notch, I’ve noticed).

In either case, you were completely owned by about 30 people, yet you refused to concede. Instead, you continued on your blind and zealous pro-GPL crusade, completely oblivious of the real facts being thrown out at you.

You, Moulinneuf, need to find something better to do with your time. Not only are you not a successful troll, but the more you post, the more you make yourself look like a moronic half-wit.

2005-08-11 11:24 pm

<em>…the more you post, the more you make yourself look like a moronic half-wit.</em>

Because your user ID makes you look just so mature and open-minded. Mmmhmmm. (And no, I’m not the person you were responding to.)

Its ALL modified BSD or traitor Open Source code that whas re-licensed , thats what you dont get , it all came from something certified Open Source of the “Traitor” class license.

“the code that they have written themselves ”

Apple did not make its entire OS by themself , most of the software you mention are modified Open Source of the traitor class license. ( seach from where most of there software came from ( Next whas/is Open source as an example … ).

“What’s the problem?”

Closing of Open Source license … due to the very design of the license which are said to be Open Source and Free Software.

“it’s not GPL, therefore it’s complete garbage and thievery, right?”

Yes , since BSD allow closing of the Open Source and Free Software code …

“do you perhaps remember that BSD thread here about 6 months ago that you went on a rage in?”

No , feel free to link to it , I dont go into anykind of rage so probably your mixing my answers with those of somebody else.

“You started frothing about the GPL and its freedoms and how the BSD license is evil”

I never ever said something like that , I always keep the same true message : according to me , BSD is neither Open Source nor Free Software because by designe the license allow for the closing of the source code to a single entity and the ownership to be solely used by only one individual who added to it minimally.

“and you were told to STFU more than once. ”

People like you who have absolutely nothing truthfull or of value to say have tried to silence me and harrassed me and made threat against myself nothing new just look at this particular thread or the GPL one before.

“but every single one of your points was refuted by at least three people.”

Not refuted , disputed with false argumentation , insulted , and also told I whas wrong but without proof. Too bad you cant link directly to your irrefutable proof I whas wrong , but since it dont exist in reality and I am absolutely right you got a bigger problem the I do.

“You conveniently twisted people’s statements to suit your tastes”

No , I reply point by point , even been told its annoying by liar such as yourself because it clearly show who is the liar and imbecile.

“or perhaps deliberately misunderstood them”

No , my understanding of english is perfect , its you who as a problem with truth and reality and who is trying to rewrite history and common day to day events to fit your views.

“you were completely owned by about 30 people”

3 now 30 , which is it ? owned ? To own an argument you have to offer the truth and make an argument that is in respect with the reality , your not , your making things as you go along.

“yet you refused to concede.”

What can I say I like the truth and reality of things and dont accept it even if I am in minority vs liars and history re-writers.

” you continued on your blind and zealous pro-GPL crusade”

I aint the one who is blind , I aint zealous not that being zealous is bad thing there the one making such good thing as America ( CANADA ) , The UN , Red cross , and all the things normal people are afraid to do. Yes I am pro GPL , but the better question is why arent you ? and no its not a crusade , its a war , its freeedom for vs power of the corporation , you obviously like to give power to the corporations who steal from you I dont.

I will do what I whant with my time , because it is MY TIME , I aint trolling as I am on subject , and the more I post the more people see you for the liar and thief that you and your friends are.

– Moulinneuf

GNU/Linux is not software or license only Its an Idea who’s time as come , no one can defeat and idea who’s time is now and the way thing are going to be in the futur.

2005-08-12 12:24 am

You use the word theif a lot. Which leads me to believe you know nothing of the particular licence, if you did, you’d know that unlike certain Stalinist licences, inviduals and yes, even companies (omg!!!!) are permitted to use the code. There is no stealing involved.

2005-08-12 1:25 am

You crack me up, really. It’s hilarious how much zealotry and ignorance you can pack into a post.

“What’s the problem?”

Closing of Open Source license … due to the very design of the license which are said to be Open Source and Free Software.

It’s not like allowing derivitives to be closed automatically closes the original. If you want to make a derivitive, you can, just like that company/individual did, base it off the original. The non-GPL licenses actually give you more rights. The fact that derivitive works don’t have to contribute back to the original isn’t a very good argument, since the open source developers will generally implement non-contributed features due to pressure, anyway (see window drop shadows).

“It’s not like allowing derivitives to be closed automatically closes the original.”

Finally , we got an OSI expert only from them Have I heard this crap and kind of stupidity. Source code is the same original and derivative , the outcome of a *traitor* license is that 100% of the original get closed if you add 0,0001% in the derivative. Its not really Open Source when the Source code is closed … and thats allowed by the license design and it reenforced as good by its numerous certifications.

“If you want to make a derivitive, you can, just like that company/individual did, base it off the original.”

Or if I use real Open Source AKA something copyleft I can take there derivative and add to it because they could not close there improvment in the first place.See its really simple a cat is a cat a dog is a dog and Open Source BSD is NOT. Real Open Source code is supposed to be that Original and derivative and the derivative from the derivative are Open Source , I know you dont get it but DONT CALL OPEN SOURCE SOMETHING WICH YOU CAN CLOSE THE SOURCE BY DESIGN FUCKING IDIOT. ( BTW , I am Calm , its just emphasis ). Its the same for Free Software , closing the access to a software to only some individual is why Free Software where created in the first place to AVOID THEM and there creation.

“The non-GPL licenses actually give you more rights.”

No , obviously , more rights are *claimed* , but in reality no one can show me any rights given by any BSD protection clause. Theyre not written so they are not given.

“The fact that derivitive works don’t have to contribute back to the original isn’t a very good argument”

No , the fact that politics are more important then

the quality and validity and reality of what a license does and really permits is really sad.

Open Source is about having access to the source at all time without exeption be it original derivative or derivative of a derivative. Its rotten at the core when something which allow the extreme opposite of Open Source gets fully certified its the same for Free software mind you.

“since the open source developers will generally implement non-contributed features due to pressure”

Thats kinda really dumb since to be improved and worked on a software code as to have the added feature in place to be tested and viewed and tested on many architectures.

Yes , it does mather that the derivative are now slave because of the traitor license and are owned by one master instead of free and Open Source software that can be used by everyone. You cant understand you only see short term profit, in the long run as proven by GNU/Linux there is more money being made when everyone as access to the code and can improve it and resale it.

“My answer is no FreeBSD cannot be a replacement for GNU/Linux , it as les software , less hardware support , less Freedom , less rights given. ”

BSD has much of the same software available to it as Linux, and more freedom, because you can do WHATEVER you want with the code, it has similar hardware support, and if you want BSD on your toaster, check out it’s sister project, NetBSD.

“Communists like Moulinneuf help the BSDs tremendously. So many people see what the GPL fascist richard stalin people are like and run from GNU.”

So because a troll decides to pick the GPL side you think all people who like the GPL are communists? You’re nuts.

I’ve seen lots of trolls both for and against the GPL on this site, and since you obviously know how to find the comments, you have as well; You aught to know better than to think Moulinneuf represents everyone who benefits from the GPL.

By the way, that entire comparison of the GPL to communism was started by Microsoft as a FUD strategy against Linux. Comparing the GPL to communism simply shows how ignorant you are towards it; for people such as myself who write software, the GPL a small guarantee that what we write can be improved upon by others without any hijacking taking place legally. I’m not partial for the GPL, I preffer to release my work as freeware, but if I’m going to abandon a software project that people can still make use of I’d most likely release it under the GPL so someone else can’t take the source code, take out any credits refering to me, and start selling it for cash as their own work.

I did not say that toaster would not run Linux, I said NetBSD ran on it. NetBSD and FreeBSD share similar histories, being derived from the same source: 386BSD, and they both run KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, The Gimp, Gaim, just like linux

“BSD has much of the same software available to it as Linux, and more freedom, because you can do WHATEVER you want with the code, it has similar hardware support, and if you want BSD on your toaster, check out it’s sister project, NetBSD.

Maybe some research may be in order”

“NetBSD and FreeBSD share similar histories”

No , but they share the same lineage and ancestry.

“they both run KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, The Gimp, Gaim, just like linux”

No , and its not the only software availaible for GNU/Linux either. GNU/Linux as also more hardware support , there not the same in anyway shape or form.

“the NetBSD Packages Collection or pkgsrc, which consists of more than 5,400 packages as of June 2005.”

The commercial distribution have 12 000 packages and if its Debian its closer to 16 000.

2005-08-12 8:32 am

“The commercial distribution have 12 000 packages and if its Debian its closer to 16 000.”

Awesome. He who has the most packages win!

Maybe its just me but I’d rather have better packages than more packages.

No , he who as more quality package and more hardware support and more users win.

“all of the BSD’s can run KDE, GNOME, The Gimp, Gaim

etc.”

Yes , off course , it certainly is usefull on specific firewal distribution and server distribution.

“You really shouldnt talk so much about others being liars….”

I use GPL software , nothing to hide , and no needs for lie , the software and license speak for themself.

2005-08-11 11:17 pm

You obviously dont know the BSD license , as an example I can take Mandriva , Red Hat , Suse , Ubuntu , Knoppix , etc code and use it for my own distribution , now since BSD is more freedom one can take Apple code and do as he wish with it and improve it right ? ( The answer is aboslutely not … )

First of all, I’m no expert, but I believe OS X’s kernel is open source. Second, if they choose not to release their source, that’s completely fine by me. In fact, OS X demonstrates a good point: non-GPL software can increase the quality of both commercial and open source applications. If apple was not able to use that software as a base, it’s not doubt OS X would have taken longer to develop and probably wouldn’t be as high quality; tell me, how is this a good thing? Besides, you can always base your OS off the original BSD and Darwin–it’s not like Apple’s use BSD software killed it off or anything.

Actually, after doing some research, you can, in fact, base an OS off of OS X’s kernel: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ . Your whole argument just went out the window.

There not including the entire software code only what they feel they can release under Open Source. Otherwise Quartz and Quicktime would be really easy to run of GNU/Linux and BSD’s by now.

“Second, if they choose not to release their source, that’s completely fine by me.”

Thats where you and I differ in opinion adding code to someone else code dont make it there source in my view , and its not fine by me.

“OS X demonstrates a good point: non-GPL software can increase the quality of both commercial and open source applications. ”

I guess your quality level is less then whats availaible from GPL software.

“If apple was not able to use that software as a base, it’s not doubt OS X would have taken longer to develop and probably wouldn’t be as high quality;”

No , OS X would not be shipping , in existence or ready today. There whas/is Billions invested in Open Source.

“tell me, how is this a good thing?”

OS X would be entirely Open Source instead of getting only small crumbles as we are getting now , Open Source and GPL dont means there is no paid developper or that there is no one making money of it , it just mean that everyone as access to look , modify and re distribute there improvments.

“Besides, you can always base your OS off the original BSD and Darwin– ”

Why not from OS X ?

“it’s not like Apple’s use BSD software killed it off or anything. ”

Almost … There are far more users and software and hardware made for Apple then there is for BSD’s …

“you can, in fact, base an OS off of OS X’s kernel”

No , but its funny of you to make such a lie , now let me write this again , you are lying because everyone in the BSD crowd who is a real developper knows that The OS X kernel source offered is not the same as the one in OS X , its only what they feel they can re-release as Open Source. Better question is why the need for all The BSD’s to have other kernel beside OS X one if its so good …

Your point is a lie , is not base on accuracy or the entire facts.

2005-08-12 1:40 am

“it’s not like Apple’s use BSD software killed it off or anything. ”

Almost … There are far more users and software and hardware made for Apple then there is for BSD’s …

That makes absolutely no sense. Are you high, or just mentally retarded?

Better question is why the need for all The BSD’s to have other kernel beside OS X one if its so good …

the BSD’s have been around a lot longer than OS X has, which makes your remark even more nonsensical than the last.

Your point is a lie , is not base on accuracy or the entire facts.

How could I have been so stupid! You have found me out–obviously, I could not keep my true intentions a secret from an all-knowing, impartial being such as yourself! I bow down to your incredible investigative abilities!

To you it does not ( because your really stupid ) , I cant remember the last time I saw a BSD computer in a store , I just saw 5 different Apple computer in a local small store.

“the BSD’s have been around a lot longer than OS X has”

Then why is Apple OS X the only one everyone get to see everywhere In store and on Apple computers ? Why is Apple able to be used with a ATI 9700 and BSD does not ? why is it that BSD dont run on AMD 64 computer and is not shipped on any of them ? what about PPC ? you see any computer equipped with a PPC cpu shipping with BSD ? NO …

“How could I have been so stupid! ”

Well stupidty is infinite , must be your genes …

“You have found me out–obviously”

Really I tought it whas you who where insulting and replying to me …

“I could not keep my true intentions a secret from an all-knowing, impartial being such as yourself!”

well I aint all knowing , or always impartial and it dont take that much to see you for what you are.

“I bow down to your incredible investigative abilities! ”

Investigative , its incredibly easy to prove that BSD are worthless and not shipping on anything and are being replaced on server faster then you can say GNU/Linux.

*uncontrollable laughter*

First they ignore you…, Then they laugh at you…, Then they fight you…, Then you WIN.

No , but feel free to point and link to where I whas proven wrong , I am sure your going to link to reply , yes many people reply to me , but my point is the one winning because more and more everyday people from BSD are switching to real freedom and GNU/Linux and the GPL.

I am not stuborn , when proven wrong I will admit to it , it dont happen very often.

The original BSD license is not even Open Source or Free software , its subsequent modification where accepted under political presuusre and lobbying , you will never make me accept that something that wich can be closed source and availaible to only some people and this by design deserve to be called Open Source and Free Software its demeaning to the one who are all the time and is an insult for those who have lived and died and fought so that Open Source and Free software exist today.

BSD guarantee freedom for the user ? Your delusionnal and a liar and a thief by association.

The Story as you pointed is OVER but its over for the BSD.

2005-08-11 9:52 pm

BSD guarantee freedom for the user ? Your delusionnal and a liar and a thief by association.

Yes, that’s very mature. While you’re at it, would you like to sock me in the face while I’m not looking?

The intended goal of the BSD license was to allow UCB students to create companies based upon the (good) work they started at university, while allowing other universities to freely use the software.

IMHO it is the best of both world, as collaboration between closed and open source developers increase standardization. If SSH is, today, the de-facto standard for remote logins, it is because we have a good, BSD-licensed implementation. It was the same for TCP/IP too, etc.

“Moulinneuf, go away. You’ve been prove wrong before, and you sit there stubbornly and refuse to listen to people. You troll BSD stories.

The BSD license guarantees freedom for the users of the software, while the GPL guarantees freedom for the software. End of story.”

I can’t resist the urge to point out that, at least in this case, it takes one to know one. Trolls, that is.

Not that I’m not also an OSNews troll, but I try to dish out my pain fairly evenly. I’ve both bashed and defended all of Linux, BSD, Windows, Mac OSX, and Solaris. I’ve said everything ranging from “Microsoft has no choice but to embrace software patents” to “in the long term proprietary software will be a niche market and free software will be the first monopoly to serve the best interest of the consumer.” I’ve defended the CDDL when no one would, and bashed it in order to make a point.

It’s not that I can’t make up my mind. My mandate is simple: I think the point of trolling is to shake things up and encourage discussion and debate. This only works if I can keep people interested in what I say, and if I appear to have an unbiased bias.

I’ve already lost interest in what you have to say, because… You’ve been prove (sic) wrong before, and you sit there stubbornly and refuse to listen to people. You troll *Linux* stories.

Smartpatrol is a consistent BSD troll, but I often appreciate his/her points. You never have anything worthwhile to say, so… Linux Is Poo, go away.

2005-08-11 9:10 pm

That’s the most ignorant view I’ve ever seen. It wouldn’t even be so bad if you actually had some common courtesy and didn’t call the BSD-alike licenses “traitors.”

Honestly, I don’t get this point of view at all. Think about it, if you’re releasing your program as open source, the point is usually to give back to the community. With that in mind, consider the BSD license. When you license code under it, you’re effectively saying everyone can benefit from this code. This leads to more code reuse, and effectively elevates the quality of the entire market, including closed source. GPL, on the other hand, makes it impractical for code to be reused in closed-source programs. This leads to less code reuse, and less quality in the market overall. Now tell me again, how is GPL better, besides the fact that you get to stick it to the man with your personal agendas?

-bytecoder

2005-08-11 10:14 pm

And they give -1 for that. Okey BSD is “the real” freedom code since it doesn’t dictate anything important. While GPL dictates that all must be GPL, so not “the real” freedom. I hate using word freedom because it’s rubbish and zealots only use it. Both have good things. While BSD can make more jobs by providing good start for project and then sell refined code as product, GPL business is service based. GPL’s best part is it’s viral effect that forces developers to bring changes back to community, something that BSD doesn’t have. What i think is that both have problems and solution is somewhere middle. It would be great to see license that would make possible to add some value to programs and get little profit from that and still allow community to get some code back.

2005-08-11 10:21 pm

“It would be great to see license that would make possible to add some value to programs and get little profit from that and still allow community to get some code back.”

> Its a mtter of marketing really BSD has been well advanced from Linux for quite some time.

1999 called. They want their misconceptions back.

No doubt there are areas where the BSD’s have advantages over Linux. But please let me know when, for example, the BSD’s do SMP as well as Linux. The comments I see in the forums regarding the exciting things that are going on with SMP in the BSD’s remind me so much of what I saw in Linux forums back when 2.2.0 came out.

Don’t get me wrong, the BSD’s are solid technology. But BSD’s glory days of smug arrogance are over. It’s just that some users don’t seem to have figured it out yet. Ever seen “Sunset Boulevard”?

2005-08-12 1:35 pm

“But BSD’s glory days of smug arrogance are over. It’s just that some users don’t seem to have figured it out yet.”

Yep. It’s true. Some Linux users are smug and arrogant. I do prefer Linux, in general. But I don’t discount the BSD’s. I do think that the post I was responding to was a good example of classic BSD arrogance in the grand tradition. And I recognize the fact that it is not representative of the attitude of the larger community today.

I’m sure that Nora could have benefited from a bit more humility back in her glory days, too. 🙂

Your point is well taken, however. We’re all POSIX, and we are stronger united than fragmented.

Like I said in my previous post, the various BSD’s have their strengths and weaknesses, as do Linux distros. My objection was to the tone of the post I was responding to and nothing more.

For reference, here was the post I was responding to, quoted in its entirety:

> Its a mtter of marketing really BSD has been well advanced from Linux for quite some time

FreeBSD is an awesome os, however, I really don’t see it as an alternative to linux. FreeBSD shines in some areas while Linux shines in others, it’s all about choosing the best os for the task at hand.

2005-08-11 9:14 pm

After all that, I forgot to respond to the topic.

In my opinion, the BSDs can’t replace linux, even if they are of superior quality. Even if linux is horribly written, it has a larger user base, and thus more developers, which means it will improve faster over time. Even now, you can see the linux kernel starting to catch up with, or even surpass, the BSD kernels.

-bytecoder

2005-08-12 2:00 am

> Even if linux is horribly written, it has a larger user base, and thus more developers, which means it will improve faster over time.

I wouldn’t be so sure, a small group of developers can outshine a large group as long as they keep their heads on straight (ie. history tells us that a small army can defeat a larger one simply by outsmarting their opponent). FreeBSD has outdone Linux in the past so I wouldn’t be so overconfident about the mere “power in numbers” Linux may have.

How do you submit a patch for the FreeBSD kernel if you are not a committer? How long does it take for a good patch to get approved and committed? How long from commit to release? Is this really better than the Linux kernel development model?

While Linux distributions do differ enough so that skills acquired for one distribution don’t necessarily apply to another, will as much of my existing skills on… Red Hat, for example, be applicable to FreeBSD as they would be if I switched to… Novell? As a followup, what’s a slice?

I will phrase my last question in the form of a loaded question: Given that FreeBSD is older, more established, higher quality, technically superior, less copyright restrictive, more integrated, more secure, more stable, and less likely to be attacked for patent infringement, in addition to the fact that its mascot is much more badass and that it is protected under the umbrella of the Steve Jobs forcefield of infallibility, why has it failed to gain as much hype, hardware and software vendor support, and market share as Linux has?

Note that this is my satirical attempt at playing devil’s advocate (no mascot-related pun intended).

How do you submit a patch for the FreeBSD kernel if you are not a committer? How long does it take for a good patch to get approved and committed? How long from commit to release? Is this really better than the Linux kernel development model?

Anybody can submit a patch. All you do is create the patch, then use the included send-pr tool to submit it to the GNATS database. If nobody looks at it right away, then you post to the -current or -stable mailing list describing the patch, and ask for someone to look at it. Depending on the part of the kernel you are patching, it can take anywhere from a few hours to a few months for it to be added to the kernel. Depending on when in the release cycle you submit the patch, it can take anywhere from a few hours to 6 months for it to be integrated and released.

This isn’t all that different from the Linux kernel development process, other than there’s a lot more peer review, and there are over 300 people with commit bits to the kernel. How many are there in Linux-land with actual commit bits to the kernel repo?

While Linux distributions do differ enough so that skills acquired for one distribution don’t necessarily apply to another, will as much of my existing skills on… Red Hat, for example, be applicable to FreeBSD as they would be if I switched to… Novell?

If you know what a man page is and how to use it, and you know what a handbook is and how to use it (in other words, if you know how to learn), then you will have no problem going from a Linux distro to FreeBSD. Most of the command names are the same. Most of the command syntax is the same (although, thankfully, there aren’t as –many-super-long-annoying –command-line-options –in-the-standard –bsd-tools). One thing a lot of Linux->FreeBSD converts don’t realise is that the documentation that comes with the OS is actually useful, and you don’t have to scour the Internet looking for relevant docs.

Going from FreeBSD->Linux on a few projects, I’ve run into the “lack of good, useful documentation” wall several times. It’s very annoying to open a man page only to read “Someone please write a man page for this app”.

I think Linux got more media/marketing attention and that helped it become popular. The people that know just enough to be dangerous have heard of Linux , but have not heard of BSD. So they jump on Linux.

I’m one to think that sometimes the better athlete is not the one who brags out loud to his/hers friends and opponents all the time, but the one who sits off to the side and shows his or hers abilities during game time.

Its a proven fact that GNU/Linux is more secure and more in use then all the BSD all put togheter. It as more hardware support both by the GNU/Linux community and the hardware vendor ( The BSD get to use it as its Open Source , but when is the last time you saw support by any BSD group or for any BSD project … ). GNU/Linux as more project per purpose then all the BSD’s put togheter.

BTW Microsoft is not 95% of the desktop market anymore there 68%. Both Apple and GNU/Linux have increased , BSD and Microsoft are both decreasing.

Microsoft report on its global Desktop share ( Apple is at 7% , Gnu/Linux 19% ( Asia , India and Africa helps a lot 😉 ) , rest is 6% ). You obviously know that only 16% of the planet have computers ( they calculated the number of computer sold by the entire planet population. )

Until you cite your sources, anything and everything you have to say is void. I’m sorry bud, but if you want to sound credible, you have to provide a real source of information for your wild claims. Just saying “I’m my source of information, I’m an expert!” is plain stupid.

Can the mods please shut this idiot up already? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He hasn’t provided a real answer to any of the challenges people have given him, let alone actually cited facts.

FreeBSD(having just installed it this morning) doesn’t target your average user, it’s still more of a tech-head OS(on the desktop) therefore it gets less hype.

– Jessta

2005-08-12 6:16 am

The answer is simple and well-documented.

In the past, there was a lawsuit (in some ways similar to the current SCO vs IBM issue) that made the future uncertain. It was during this time that people switched from BSD to Linux.

Once the dust settled with the outcome in favor of BSD, the people that went over to Linux already had gained expertise in Linux and probably didn’t want to switch yet again.

I think the 2.4 kernel was the one where Linux finally caught up with FreeBSD’s kernel. And I think 2.6 is better in some regards but the trend of adding significant new features for each point release is making 2.6 less reliable/stable than previous branches of linux kernels.

Also, there is a signal to noise ratio that might cloud reality regarding popularity. Remember that FreeBSD is one of the most widely used OS for servers and even hotmail.com used it until Microsoft purchased them and switch most over to Windows. Yahoo and other high-traffic sites have also used FreeBSD.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I use both Debian Sarge and FreeBSD 4. I plan on switching over to FreeBSD 6.2 when it comes out (I avoid point releases on servers).

About all this religious waring and rubbish, has anyone bothered to realise that LGPL addresses the viral nature of your GPL code?

Companies can use it without the viral effects of the GPL and the code released is still directly covered by the GPL.

Look into it, it`s amazing that some people in the world still belive in compromise

2005-08-11 10:58 pm

i am a user of both linux and freebsd (and openbsd and netbsd) … each is deployed according to their suitability for the job.

however, i have rarely come across an artice that articulates sufficiently convincing reasons to switch from one to another.

for example – for heavily threaded servers on multiple CPU machines, running a service characterised by lots of short network interactions – linux is better than bsd. simple.

something that people dont pick up on is package management or software manageability. people seem to favour FreeBSD for servers – but have you every tried upgrading software or even the kernel on live servers? it not a quick task – you may as well install a fresh OS and services. its a dream to be able to upgrade with known-stable softwarre using apt fon debian-stable for example – outage times of minutes, not days.

2005-08-12 9:44 am

I always buildworld on live server – there isn’t any problem unless You never read a handbook.

something that people dont pick up on is package management or software manageability. people seem to favour FreeBSD for servers – but have you every tried upgrading software or even the kernel on live servers? it not a quick task – you may as well install a fresh OS and services. its a dream to be able to upgrade with known-stable softwarre using apt fon debian-stable for example – outage times of minutes, not days.

Package management isn’t that big of a chore: I have a reference firewall, proxy, and desktop here that I do all my updates on and create packages (make package, or pkg_create -b) on. Then I just scp those packages out the systems, and install them using pkg_add. This gives me the control to only include the options I need in the packages I create, and the convenience of using packages for all the upgrades.

System upgrades requires at most 10 minutes of downtime. Updating the source tree and compiling the system can be done in the background throughout the day, or just overnight. The install and mergemaster takes maybe 10 minutes, again this can be done in the background. All it takes is two reboots to make sure everything is working correctly (only 1 is needed, I like the second to be sure I’m only using the new software).

If you are doing things decentralised (using the ports tree on each system) then you need to re-think your methods. Don’t blame the tools if you’re disorganised.

I’m running Debian on my laptop, and it’s not as easy to use / maintain as my FreeBSD laptop. The biggest issue is having three different repositories for apps to choose from, and not having a standard OS base and a clear separation between OS and apps (why does installing 1 package from unstable change my OS version?) I can’t stand the SysV init system, and using the file-rc init setup isn’t much better.

Apt is nice, but there really needs to be a clear separation between OS and apps, otherwise you end up installing 1 app that upgrades 100 packages, including 90% of the OS, and you end up fubar’ing the entire system (done that twice already on this laptop).

2005-08-11 10:58 pm

OSNews is now a subsidiary of FUD Inc. Notice that every time you try a rational argument, a bunch of irrational replies show up and your own posts get modded down.

The quality of article links have been deteriorating for quite some time. EugiI’m-never-wrongnia started the trend and the current editors just keep the ball rolling.

OSNews has lost its purpose…

2005-08-11 11:25 pm

Man, when is this dude going to learn how to spell? He’s been posting here and on PCLO and the guy refuses to make himself look intelligent!

I just installed 5.4 yesterday, and having tinkered around with it, i’m very pleased. I like that they respect /usr/local/, plus ports is very convenient (major brownie points for having simple binary AND source installations).

As a desktop, it’s pretty much identical to Linux (Gnome is still Gnome..), so there’s not much to say about that.

Great fun for people that think it’s fun to try out new operating systems.

2005-08-11 11:38 pm

FreeBSD is great as a server, I only tried after Redhat 9 and have been using it since. At work, that’s what I set up as our database(MySQL/PostgreSQL), application server (tomcat/apache) and Bacula for Network backup for some windows workstations.

I still love linux, I use Gentoo as my workstation OS and that rocks too.

Not to burst the bubble of all the FreeBSD geeks reading here but no matter how much you justify, BSD-license does not help the community. It only helps the closed source guys who like to pick up code but do not want to give back their changes, if any. Take for example, Microsoft! It has probably used more BSD code than anyone else out there and made a monopoly to attempt to “kill” the same communities. At least the GPL prevents such misuse.

So, friends, understand this difference and ditch BSD for GPL based Linux!

Thank you.

2005-08-12 12:17 am

Then there are those who simply wish to put stubborn politics aside and focus on technical merits rather than clinging to a psuedo-religion and using an inferior system.

2005-08-12 2:05 am

Not to burst the bubble of all the FreeBSD geeks reading here but no matter how much you justify, BSD-license does not help the community. It only helps the closed source guys who like to pick up code but do not want to give back their changes, if any. Take for example, Microsoft! It has probably used more BSD code than anyone else out there and made a monopoly to attempt to “kill” the same communities. At least the GPL prevents such misuse.

So, friends, understand this difference and ditch BSD for GPL based Linux!

Thank you.

But BSD license is totally about that. Letting them pick up the code for whatever purpose. The BSD license helps promote code reuse even for commercial products. That’s a good thing. This way good, proven code gets used into those commercial products. That’s a win-win situation.

it came across the difficulty in using different flavors of linux. come to think of it, however, most users, both home users and business users, of linux stick at their chosen distribution for quite some time. if there is a need to shift to another distribution, a tour for once would normally be enough, and again the new distribution used would be their chosen one for quite some time. that gets the issue of difficulty in using different distros less significant.

also, the author did not mention ease of use. looking at xandros, mepis and ubuntu, i believe freebsd is way too unfriendly, at least for the desktop or general users.

as a server? linux, particulary debian, debian-based distros, and redhat have proven to be quality servers for industrial use.

having said these, i think the issue of freebsd vs. linux is not the best issue to raise. rather, it must be any linux flavor vs. freebsd vs. mac vs. windows vs. etc…

in particular, i think freebsd would be greatly challenged when compared to mepis!

2005-08-12 12:40 am

Linux is probably the way to go for most END USERS. FreeBSD is simply less supported than GNU/Linux. For instance, I program using the Eclipse IDE which is Java based. Last time I checked Sun Microsystems wasn’t distributing java binary packages for ANY BSD. I have never successfully compiled Eclipse from the ports system, and even using patches to port Java to BSD produces an even buggier java build than Sun provides themselves (which trust me… it ain’t all that great direct from the source).

FreeBSD has the better license from a commercial standpoint. That is why so many commercial products are based on BSD (i.e; Solaris & Mac OS X). The userland is much cleaner (Slackware Linux borrowed the rc’s from FreeBSD). FreeBSD just gets the shaft. Everyone takes from it (Linux, Microsoft, Apple, Sun) yet they give little back.

The GPL prevents that from happening. Companies get sued for screwing with the linux community or hated out of existance. This is a good thing, but not as good as “a perfect world” where the BSDs didn’t get screwed in the first place.

Gentoo is probably the most usable distro, yet is certainly one of the most difficult and VERY TIME CONSUMING to install. Their portage system (derived from FreeBSD’s ports system, *cough*) is the strength of the system. You end up with a fully functioning system that doesn’t have gaping holes and everything is custom compiled for your architechure type… with about as many customizations as you can tolerate to take the time to input.

GNU/Linux simply has the application support, hands down. Most things are ported to FreeBSD long after ported to Linux, if at all. By running BSD you will be running several versions behind in software that ships in most modern distros (use gentoo! seriously guys and gals!). FreeBSD makes a great headless server… it isn’t for desktop productivity (you know, that thing that most end users expect without a hassle). If you want to be productive then use Windows (flamebait?) or Mac OS X!

# 1: You complain about lack of binaries for Java, but then you go off and recommend Gentoo, wtf? If you’re going to do that then you can just use ports to install a JRE/JDK instead of portage.

# 2: If the *BSD users / developers thought they were being shafted they’d switch licences. Luickly then don’t care. The licence is free in the sense that -everyone- can use it. If you want to cry yourself to sleep at night re-licence the code under the GPL. You have the real “freedom” to.

# 3: Have you ever heard of a wonder and magical thing called Linux Binary Compatibility?

2005-08-12 1:06 am

# 1: I recommend gentoo because it builds a complete system without gaping dependency holes. Newsflash: Sun’s JDK/JRE is a complete environment for running java code. You can install their binary build on a “from source” distro and not suffer ill effects (ill effects constrained only to the binary). At least not any more ill than running something written in java…

I also use binary ATI drivers within gentoo. I wonder why that is. Maybe its because the SOURCE CODE ISN’T PROVIDED. Try getting ATI+opengl accel in BSD.

# 2: You said it yourself, the developers don’t care. I consider the developers as noble as saints. They are giving their sweat and blood away for nothing. Too bad big developer companies like Apple and Sun aren’t giving what they get else FreeBSD would be superior.

*Imagine… Sun and Apple submitting their code back to BSD…*

Why re-license something free? The GPL isn’t free… it is limited and that’s why I stated that in a perfect world we wouldn’t need a GPL. The GPL protects developers from greedy corporations, like M$. Without the GPL, what exactly would GNU/Linux be? Deader than BeOS.

# 3: Have you ever heard of a wonder and magical thing called Linux Binary Compatibility?

Well, I have nothing against FreeBSD.

But, I will not run production server on binary compatibility. For entertainment or just want to try something it’s okay, but for serious purposes, I won’t, no matter how everybody told me that it is faster.

In this area Linux has better and larger support from companies (oracle, java).

2005-08-13 2:10 am

Most things are ported to FreeBSD long after ported to Linux, if at all.

14000 softwares in ports. That equal Debain. That’s much than RedHat, and much, much more than Slackware. Unlike Debian, they’re updated.

It’s not the fault of the BSD distros that the Java runtime is proprietary software.

You wanna emulate Microsoft Word in FreeBSD? Use the Serentiy Virtual Machine

By running BSD you will be running several versions behind in software that ships in most modern distros

STOP LYING, fanboy! BSD are updated frequently, all have a 6 month cycle! Take Debian as an example of frequent updates? What about RedHat, and all the stuff they screwed up? What about Slackware, a one-man distro.

The thing is, Linux is full of young, ignorant, vocal, fanboys like yourself.

I’d tend to agree that the software (aka “ports”) you’ll find in FreeBSD are as up to date as those you’ll find in any “mainstream” linux distro, save maybe for Gentoo, which uses the “bleeding edge” most of the time (by the way, I am using gentoo on one of my dev servers, just so you know). I’ll agree with the previous comments that we should all just get along. While the BSD and GPL differ quite a bit (in philosopy that is), they both have a similar end result. We’re not enemies, despite what some may want others to think.

2005-08-12 12:52 am

I understand from running a small business that, it has to attract new and old customers.

The problem I see in FreeBSD (and other nixes) is it is difficult for new comers. There are NOT a lot of documents such as guides, tutorials and ‘in 10 minutes’. A search on google produces few useful results, most of them refer back to the official document project. But it is a bit too techie and out of date. It pales comparing the array of books for MS windows and offices.

The problem I see in FreeBSD (and other nixes) is it is difficult for new comers. There are NOT a lot of documents such as guides, tutorials and ‘in 10 minutes’. A search on google produces few useful results, most of them refer back to the official document project.

One of the biggest advantages of BSD from Linux is the documentation. Just read the handbook and the corresponding man pages and your set. Linux OTOH has TLDP which has mostly generic docs and tons of how-to’s which leaves you in the middle co’z some solutions DON’T actually work.

Frenchman, did you just try to say that Apple stole all of the code for OS X from open-source projects? Care to point me to the open-source project from which Aqua was stolen? iTunes? Quartz? QuickTime? Spotlight? Come on, prove your point.

As for XNU (the OS X kernel) being open-source … yes, yes it is. You can download the sources and compile an OS X kernel if you wish to do so. Do your research, little man.

OS X kernel is not Open Source , they release an incomplete Open Source version and say its the same exept the size and the code included are not equal …

You can bulshit all you whant everything in OS X as its base in something Open Source ( mostly BSD licensed ) ( Safari is LGPL based ). It as been very well documented over the years , like you said do your research , because clearly you dont know what your talking about , the problem is not that they use Open Source , the problem is taht they close it and never give anything complete back.

2005-08-12 1:52 am

The title of the article is somewhat misleading, and once read, it is basically an extension of the FreeBSD home page’s description. Misleading because you could construe the title to mean that one is better then the other; it’s an easy read description of a very popular OS.

Alternative in the sense, not that Linux distributions are bad but in the sense that choice is always good. The freebsd teamis carrying on a grand tradition that only adds to choice for everyone; the team members do a great job and are watching over their AOR; there is no reason the BSD license has to be harmful; it is just another choice.

Dru Lavigne has won a wide following for her technical articles that compliment the FreeBSD handbook, written in a way a beginner can understand. This piece was an easy write for her that could have been written by anyone, but having her name on the byline cannot hurt.

2005-08-12 2:18 am

I find it funny that everytime BSD is mentioned on this and many other sites, there’s this supposed contention between whether people are convinced to “switch”, should be convinced to switch, and whether they did, do or don’t want to. The reactions from many people here says a lot more about the dangers of having a myopic view of modern computing than it does about whether BSD, Linux, X, Y or Z is better. Not to mention arguing over liscenses.

What’s somewhat insulting is that many of you claim a “we” and stick to some side without ever having developed *any* software intended for use by other people, much less an operating system. No, I’m not telling you your opinion doesn’t count. On the other hand, I wonder if you spent more time familiarizing yourself w/ the design and implementation of these OSs, and less being preoccupied with market share and popularity, maybe your perspective would be sufficiently broadened such that you didn’t sound like a bunch of bleeding b*st*rds everytime a BSD article materializes (that goes doubly for the BSD fanatics here – you can, and should, do better).

If open-source software was about discrediting the hard work of other people because you’re too ignorant to read a man page, too close-minded to see the innate value of competing choices, and too provincial to separate the needs of other people from your own – you wouldn’t have any free operating systems to argue over. Open Source is about many things, including freedom, but it’s especially about *doing*. Do *yourself* a favor and take the time to understand the complexities of that operating system that you hate so much – chances are you’ll learn a lot more about it and you’ll hopefully have something more interesting to say than “I don’t like this.”. Who knows, maybe you’ll actually walk away with a better sense of respect for the many people who’ve been writing this software since before some of you knew what a computer was.

As far as GPL vs. BSD…. you’ve got to be kidding me.

I would like anyone who’s participated in writing either of these licenses to stand up. I’d like anyone who’s written a legally binding license for their own software to stand up. Chances are many of you are still sitting down. Noone who spends their time and energy writing and releasing open code for the benefit of others deserves to be called a “traitor” or a “nazi” – regardless of what license is being used. If you know so much, write your own software and your own license to go with it.

Technically superior, easier to use, better as a server, desktop, toaster or whatever – the existence of these two OSs is *not* mutually exclusive. Period. For those of you who continually insist on emphasizing ALL THE WRONG THINGS about not only the OSs that you don’t like but also those that you do – I pray for your continued frustration and confusion. May many broken servers, mangled software packages, firings, misinterpreted facts, and embarrassing social moments find their way to you. It would be well deserved.

This is the absolute *last* time I visit this site – I decided to stop engaging in conversations here a long time ago. It’s a shame that neither linux or bsd advocates don’t know how to have a discussion about their preferences without actually making any sense. When it really comes down to it, a lot of you users aren’t much help to anyone, yourselves included.

I hope that when you return you will actually be more informed about the reality of things and why BSD needs to be extinct in order for Free Software and Open Source to exist and survive andthat you will participate instead of writting meaningless diatribes about your non existant moral superiority.

Pot, kettle, black as they say. I have never used BSD. Never read the license. So I was actually open to what you had to say. Too bad it was completely lost in your hypocritical trolling and name calling. Next time you should try and be civil so people might actually care what you have to say.

2005-08-12 3:00 am

comparing linux and unix is the same as comparing an apple to an orange.

They both have the same software and they look the same. The difference is its under body.

So the argument is how do you tell some one that likes apples to try an orange.

No , because respect and honest discussion you will not get from liar , thief , traitors and anonymous tried it in the past and you get served that GPL is the devil and offer less freedom or is an equal of bsd’s which is absolutely false and ridiculous. There come a time when people have to face reality GNU/Linux is winning , yes its Open Source and Free Software and allow BSD to come along because The GNU/Linux user pay to have KDE and Gnome and all the other Open Source and Free Software made. Would have been fun that BSD’S would be the same and contributed as much but there not and mostly because of the License , its going to be shooting in the foot anyone who support the BSD’s development 30 years of History as shown it as such.

The message is clear : you can come along , use our drivers, improvments and software but dont insult us or think your the same or our equals because in reality your absolutely not and dont even think for a second that you can be a replacement.

– Moulinneuf

2005-08-12 8:24 am

“No , because respect and honest discussion you will not get from liar , thief , traitors ”

Heh. that’s rich coming from the writer of some truly vitriolic posts.

I dont see where this “liar, thief and traitors” comes from but i’m sure you’ll provide some interesting conspiracy theory on that now that I’ve asked.

“The message is clear : you can come along , use our drivers, improvments and software but dont insult us or think your the same or our equals because in reality your absolutely not and dont even think for a second that you can be a replacement.

”

I tried to think of a nice way to say this but it’s just not possible:

You’re a moronic jerk. Really.

Just stop talking, you’re giving Linux and other OSS software a bad name.

Moulinneuf, while I appreciate reading your comments, they all seem to be senseless babble relating to “GPL is free and BSD is the devil, it’s a traitor, you are idiots, blah blah blah…”

Now, allow me to take a more “academic” approach (after all, BSD started out in the acadmeic world). Personally, I don’t feel one is better than the other. While logically the BSD license gives you more “freedom” (you can do whatever you want, not whatever your “freedom giving” license says you can do). I’m certainly not bashing the GPL, I just feel that the BSD license provides more “freedom” to allow you to do *whatever* you want.

No doubt you’ll respond, probably calling me an idiot or a “theif by association”, but truth be told, I’m stating an opinion, much like you.

No need for one , you know whats what or you dont. You obviously dont.

cajunman4life I personnaly dont like readings your lies and pathetic qualification of what I say and added personnal insults , I am not making comments as you put it I am just offering the truth , and the reality of things.

“Now, allow me to take a more “academic” approach”

If thats an academic aproach , The academy in your country are in serious trouble.

“(after all, BSD started out in the acadmeic world)”

Bell labs , UNIX V6 , are considered an acadmy ? nice …

“Personally, I don’t feel one is better than the other. ”

I guess cajunman4life feelings is not an academic quality I would regard as having too much value , personnal feeling are highly subjective and differently quantifed from one another.

“While logically the BSD license gives you more “freedom” ”

If your logic is flaud and rotten , yes , ok I would agree BSD offer more freedom Because it enable the closing of the source and remove access to the software after someone made a derivative and decided to close it to all others. Otherwise Open Source logic and spirit is never going to be in agremment with somthing that close the source and acces to a software.

“you can do whatever you want”

I would really love to see for one of you to take a closed derivative and do what you whant with it legally. But no , derivative are not to be mentionned in your do what you whant world.

“not whatever your “freedom giving” license says you can do”

The GPL dont put restriction on the derivative as they are the same as the original , its not a traitor license everyone can really do whatever they whant with it , there is no one who is going to say : hey its my derivative you cant do this I own it, because then they would nullify there use of the entire GPL software ever produced or about to be produced. Defense of rights and freedom is the right and moral thing to do.

“I’m certainly not bashing the GPL”

No , your lying about it and distorting the truth to fit your illogical views, its worst.

“I just feel that the BSD license provides more “freedom” to allow you to do *whatever* you want. ”

Again with feeling , as soon as you can put words , definition and truthfull values behind your feelings then I will consider them as a valid argument otherwise all I can say is for now there crap.

You absolutely got that right and then some more … because thats what you and your friends are , period.

“but truth be told”

You can start anytime , telling the truth , I aint got nothing forcing you to lie time after time after time.

“I’m stating an opinion”

NO an Opinion would be :” Personnaly even do your right I prefer BSD and the BSD license as thats what I like”

Thats a truthfull Opinion.

” much like you.”

Sorry , I keep my opinion for myself , as they may be twisted in order to make me look like a fool , ( hey , it happened in the past ) , now I stick with reality and the truth.

– Moulinneuf

2005-08-12 4:10 am

No , but I am …

Hardly as I’m sure everyone here is aware by now.

No , its based of Open Source

Darwin the KERNEL is open source, which is all he said.

There not including the entire software code only what they feel they can release under Open Source.

No shit sherlock. He never claimed they open sourced the whole OS. He said that the kernel was open source, which it is.

Otherwise Quartz and Quicktime would be really easy to run of GNU/Linux and BSD’s by now.

What reason would apple have to GPL Quartz and Quicktime ? So assholes like you can just take the code and never help their bottom line? They are a business not a charity and althought I’m sure there are people at apple who love what they do, make no mistake they do it to make money.

Thats where you and I differ in opinion adding code to someone else code dont make it there source in my view , and its not fine by me.

Then stick with the GPL. Why do people like you have to piss and moan about anything that does not fit into how you “view” the world? Use your GPL. Others will use BSD or proprietary offerings. Get over yourself already. Its just an operating system either way.

I guess your quality level is less then whats availaible from GPL software.

There is plenty of quality software that is GPL, BSD and proprietary. Some people use a little of each and see the technical and economic values that each offer.

No , OS X would not be shipping , in existence or ready today. There whas/is Billions invested in Open Source.

Ah bullsh*t. They would have purchase the BeOS. The purchase of NeXT is what took them down the BSD road and it was a good choice.

OS X would be entirely Open Source instead of getting only small crumbles as we are getting now

Well farther up in the thread you were claiming that GPL software is of better quality than apple software anyway so whats the problem ? By your own admission you are not missing anything.

Open Source and GPL dont means there is no paid developper or that there is no one making money of it , it just mean that everyone as access to look , modify and re distribute there improvments.

Same with the BSD. In fact its better than that. I can take the BSD OS, make changes that give me a commercial advantage against the competition and start a company. I don’t have to worry about the competition taking what makes my product unique and I can give back any portion I choose for whatever reason I want. Thats FREEDOM baby.

Why not from OS X ?

Apple did not intend to open source all of OS X. That was the choice they made. People who GPL software choose to give it all away and that too is their choice. Both of these licenses have meaning and can co-exist. They do right now.

Almost … There are far more users and software and hardware made for Apple then there is for BSD’s …

Thats because Apple spent the time and money to make it happen. It also has to do with one organization setting the standard and writing the map. Most open source projects do not as a whole have the focus that a company does. Thats obvious in that there is no GPL OS that can really match OS X for UI design or plug and play hardware support.

No , but its funny of you to make such a lie , now let me write this again , you are lying because everyone in the BSD crowd who is a real developper knows that The OS X kernel source offered is not the same as the one in OS X , its only what they feel they can re-release as Open Source.

Really ? What of the OS X kernel is missing from darwin ?

Don’t tell me quartz or quicktime because those are not the kernel. At the start of your message you claimed to be an expert now is your chance to prove it. Tell us all what is in the OS X 10.4.2 kernel that is missing from darwin?

Better question is why the need for all The BSD’s to have other kernel beside OS X one if its so good …

Oh no ! I dont get the aproval and support of “anonymous” , I will bow my head in shame and shall be for eternity striken from ever using my keyboard from this moment on , wait nope dont work …

” Darwin the KERNEL is open source, which is all he said.”

No he said OS X kernel whas darwin and it whas Open source because Darwin is open Source , sorry you cant read properly.

“He never claimed they open sourced the whole OS.”

No , he falsely claimed that Darwin ***kernel*** and OS X ***Kernel*** where the same and that they where both Open source , and no OS X kernel shipping with MAC OS X is not Open Source entirely. sorry shit head. Follow the text and whats written should be simple its english.

” What reason would apple have to GPL Quartz and Quicktime ?”

**If** it where based of a real Open Source and Free software license there would be no need of a reason thats what they would be obligated to do , since there using MIT/BSD licensed software ( traitor class of license ) then can just take and give nothing back.

“So assholes like you can just take the code and never help their bottom line? ”

Yes , but wait its going to be more like first dropping the share price to rock bootom price after offering a better GNU/Linux offer both software and hardware and buying them back for pennies on the share and when all is done fire the all lot of those thiefs. Because I did not make sale of 10 million of there hardware personnaly and dont personnaly own and bought for some people in my familly there software and hardware product.

“They are a business not a charity and althought I’m sure there are people at apple who love what they do, make no mistake they do it to make money. ”

Make no mistake , unlike some who make false and empty promise we will buy back and absorb Apple and Microsoft as its the natural course and evolution of our business we are in the business of making Free and Open Source software and company that do so too. We just got a better business model then they do.

“Then stick with the GPL.”

Thats what I do I buy BSD software and switch them to GPL.

“Why do people like you have to piss and moan about anything that does not fit into how you “view” the world?”

Actually its you who is pissing in your pants unable to compete and are moaning that whe are not doing what you whant us to do and act like the other sheep you like so much.

“Others will use BSD or proprietary offerings.”

Not for long. BSD is a traitor license , and proprietary software can be bought or made obsolete by better offering. Winning is not a question of if but a question of when. Make no mistake we will replace them all and make them all obsolete.

“Get over yourself already. Its just an operating system either way. ”

Keep thinking that way.

” There is plenty of quality software that is GPL, BSD and proprietary.”

Nope , only GPL offer the real quality. You cant understand.

“Some people use a little of each and see the technical and economic values that each offer. ”

I buy them all to see how I can improve the GPL software , there is no need for BSD or Proprietary when a GPL solution exist.

” Ah bullsh*t. ”

No and thats why its BSD based this days , they saw some software they liked but did not like the GPL license. Because they knew most Windows software would not switch or be made for the Apple platform.

” They would have purchase the BeOS. The purchase of NeXT is what took them down the BSD road and it was a good choice. ”

Funny how you like to rewrite history to fit your view.

“Well farther up in the thread you were claiming that GPL software is of better quality than apple software anyway so whats the problem ?”

No claim , it would be better to have Apple on our side instead of having to eventually *naturally* destroy them.

“By your own admission you are not missing anything. ”

Yes , dont mean we cant ask to have others join us 😉

” Same with the BSD.”

No , dont be a liar and delusionnal.

“In fact its better than that. ”

Really ? I dont think your better is really better for everyone …

“I can … and start a company. ”

Yes because Open Source Software is all about competition and screwing all other contributors. You receive more then what you give in thats the reality for all the GPL player involved.

“I don’t … baby. ”

No , thats locking in and screwing your partner and contributor.

” Apple did not intend to open source all of OS X. ”

There mistake 😉

“that was the choice they made.”

Right , one which will cause there ultimate fall.

“People who GPL software choose to give it all away and that too is their choice. ”

No , but its a difficult concept for you to grasp and to understand , the reality that people make more money with GPL and receive more in return.

” both of these licenses have meaning and can co-exist.”

Thats where your irrealist BSD will be the easiest take over from the GNU/Linux because we can use the traitor effect of the license too 😉 For Apple , its going to be easier on X86.

“They do right now. ”

No , but GNU/Linux is not targetting them just now.

” Thats because Apple spent the time and money to make it happen. ”

BSD came first , had more money invested in it but with fewer real results.

“It also has to do with one organization setting the standard and writing the map. ”

No, it as to do with BSD not delivering and not doing its job over 30 years.

“Most open source projects do not as a whole have the focus that a company does.”

Depends on leadership and reality and reason , reminds me of Debian …

“Thats obvious in that there is no GPL OS that can really match OS X for UI design or plug and play hardware support. ”

Thats obvious that your misinformed , just for you : we got some hardware that is coming that will be just as tight as Apple Hadrware is on there specific hardware. I aint talking about obsolete hardware or second class hardware.

“What of the OS X kernel is missing from darwin ?”

Wow , talk about a reverse question , its darwin that is missing driver and modules that are in OS X kernel but not given back to Darwin.

” Don’t tell me quartz or quicktime because those are not the kernel.”

Never whas my intentions to do so.

” At the start of your message you claimed to be an expert now is your chance to prove it.”

Nah , with such a comment , I dont need to proove anything , I said compare the size of both its enough to see there not equal in quantity of code.

“Tell us all what is in the OS X 10.4.2 kernel that is missing from darwin? ”

proprietary driver and modules for starter.

” Well i think he did better than the bullshit you posted personally.”

I did not post bulshit so your personnal opinion is interfering with facts.

2005-08-12 6:24 am

My answer is no FreeBSD cannot be a replacement for GNU/Linux , it as les software , less hardware support , less Freedom , less rights given.

Bytecoder, did you ever seriously USED it or do you just talk to talk? 😉

2005-08-12 6:32 am

but have you every tried upgrading software or even the kernel on live servers? it not a quick task – you may as well install a fresh OS and services. its a dream to be able to upgrade with known-stable softwarre using apt fon debian-stable for example – outage times of minutes, not days.

Yeah I have. Actually, it’s a dream to have always the *latest stable* software and does not take long if you perform the task often enough.

Oh, and don’t use a pentium I if you want quick updates. Did you ever tried to upgrade from release to release with Linux? Ok, if you use Debian the release cycle is as fast as Microsoft’s.

Moulinneuf: if someone use BSD-licensed code in a closed source program, the developers do not lose anything (information is duplicated but not destroyed). Instead, they can win big (information is created). The user often contributes back bug reports (or fixes) or even whole new subsystems (e.g. the netgraph framework).

2005-08-12 6:41 am

I am really suprised again about the statement of GPL lovers. I wonder..

– Did YOU ever donate something to the OSS community at all?

– I you do/did so, and the code you’re using is BSD licenced, wouldn’t you donate your code back because it’s not GPL’ed?

– Do you believe that if you give something and nobody forced you in any way, that you have the right to expect something back?

– In other words: do you only want to give if someone gives you something?

I am very curious to the answers.. 🙂

2005-08-12 9:17 am

I am really suprised again about the statement of GPL lovers. I wonder..

I’m rather surprised that people manage to debate on something that is evident, and backed by facts.

It’s rather enlightening to see comments of pro-BSD licence people (I have NOTHING against them or their licence), which sometimes rely on lies, like no one of pro-BSD licence people will actually state why Linux is more successful, to the point you would think they don’t know.

– Did YOU ever donate something to the OSS community at all?

I have

– I you do/did so, and the code you’re using is BSD licenced, wouldn’t you donate your code back because it’s not GPL’ed?

Exactly. I would never release one bit of code under BSD licence anyway. But if I had to improve BSD licence code, I would be obligated to give it back under BSD. A good example is OpenSSH.

– Do you believe that if you give something and nobody forced you in any way, that you have the right to expect something back?

This question do anything. You ALWAYS have the “right to expect”. Nobody can force you not to “expect”.

However, when you give something, you have the right to put conditions on the gift (that’s what BSD and GPL licenses, heck, that’s what any licenses do).

– In other words: do you only want to give if someone gives you something?

That’s what every license do, so yes. I don’t even understand what is the point of those questions, they are useless.

At least as long as we are talking about licenses.

Ookaze

2005-08-12 10:51 am

1. I have donated code, time and money.

2. Yes, and I can say this from experience; a I have modified BSD licensed library for my day job and NOT passed the changes/fixes/enhancements back. Why should I? That’s the point of that license, there is NO obligation to do so (not even moral imperative).

3. No, but I only want to give something if others must reciprocate. The core of the GPL dude.

1) I do not donate code as I am not a coder. I donate time, money, commentry and advice.

2) If I was starting with BSD-licenced code and made a derivative work, I would probably release my code under an Open licence (i.e. ‘give back’). But I am more likely to start with GPL code.

3)a) I have the right to expect whatever I want. I may often be disapointed.

b) If I choose to give something of my own, I can stipulate under what terms I give it.

4) I beleive in teaching by example. To give without expecting anything back can encourage others to do the same, and in the end I get somethign back!

2005-08-12 8:35 am

I have one question: How can a programmer develop a application in BSD license ? (The GNU tools are in the system: gcc…

2005-08-12 8:49 am

“I have one question: How can a programmer develop a application in BSD license ? (The GNU tools are in the system: gcc…”

Why was this modded down? It’s a valid question.

The answer is that GCC’s licese permits you do create non-GPL software with it, in fact you can use whatever license you want. Also, in case of the BSD’s, they are not using GNU libc but their own libc so they are not restricted by the glibc license. This is true for many other “system” libraries too.

I’m now agressively and actively modding this thread. It had gone out of hand, and I won’t tolerate that. Some posts may have gotten accidentily modded, please accept my apologies for that. Thanks for bringing that question back into nomral discussion.

To everyone else: keep this thread decent, or else this thread will be a thing of the past.

Ah, the old ATT&T/BSDI reasoning. But it is now over 11 years since that case was settled. Linux was a strictly uniprocessor kernel at that point, and it wouldn’t support non-x86 architectures for another two years. Surely Linux would have been a major downgrade for BSD users, so much so that they would have rather stuck with an uncertain future than switch to Linux.

The other reasoning for the hype differential is that BSD developers only care about developing good code whereas Linux developers aggressively promote their work. If this is true, then we can agree with 20/20 hindsight that the BSD community’s insular nature was extraordinarily detrimental to the development of the OS in the long run. However, I think that this argument is a cop-out to make it seem as though the popularity of Linux is undeserved not a cause for concern for the BSD communities.

The best argument I can make for the success of Linux is that the initial drive in the community to produce a free software system capable of surplanting Windows on the desktop had the side effect of making Linux incredibly popular as a server OS, which might in turn eventually ease Linux further onto the desktop over time. None of the BSDs ever had any ambitions to compete with Windows in any application, so no one cared.

2005-08-12 9:46 am

The other reasoning for the hype differential is that BSD developers only care about developing good code whereas Linux developers aggressively promote their work.

Which is obviously a lie, with the only purpose of calling Linux developers bad names. I don’t understand this attitude.

Linux developers do NOT promote their work. When they talk about it, that’s because they are asked to. I think there is a lot of jealousy going on, bringing bad feelings against Linux from BSD camp.

I never saw a Linux dev trash talk BSD like that.

The fact of the matter is that yes, BSD was far more advanced than Linux 11 years ago, but Linux frog leaped steps, until some benchmark made by a BSD guy some years ago showed Linux (2.6.0-rc I think) was beating all the BSD in the network realm (throughput, latency). The cause for this BSD camp seems to fail to understand. that’s entirely because of the GPL. Without it, you think the embedded devices company would have put the code back in the kernel ? Same for NUMA, same for Infiniband, …

Fact of the matter, is that while MS or Apple used BSD code, they rarely give back anything. Well, that’s fine you say, no problem with that. But then don’t complain that Linux is more used/talked about/hyped about, because the reason it is like that is that most developers HATE being treated like free labor, when companies make money with their code.

FreeBSD developers are saints really. Fine. Users say it’s fine. OK, but then why complain ? Because in this world, saints are not rewarded ? Complain then, but don’t blame Linux devs, who chose a license trying to protect the saints in this world.

A recent example (these are just facts, I find it amazing people deny reality) : MacOS X giving back to Konqi, because they were forced too. They did it reluctantly, they would never have if not for the (L)GPL. That’s THE SAME for GCC ObjC implementation. So then, Konqi and GCC are much more powerful. This would have not been the case without the GPL, as like BSD license people say : “Apple is there to make money, we don’t care if they don’t give code back”.

Contrary to what I see written here, it is a win ONLY FOR APPLE. The Konqi and GCC cases (GPL softwares) are the win/win situation, as everybody benefit.

If this is true, then we can agree with 20/20 hindsight that the BSD community’s insular nature was extraordinarily detrimental to the development of the OS in the long run.

The insular nature is reinforced by the license. Linux was developed in the same insular nature (still is), but everyone wants to add its code in it, while it is not true of BSD. The fact of the matter is that Linux is forced to reject some code, and that a big well known stealer like MS recommend the BSD license against the GPL for others, notice they don’t release their code under it.

The best argument I can make for the success of Linux is that the initial drive in the community to produce a free software system capable of surplanting Windows on the desktop had the side effect of making Linux incredibly popular as a server OS

Which is pure BS. The server OS side was already well entrenched in 1998, when the desktop was just starting on Linux. More BS, because the task of giving a good desktop to Linux (and not surplanting Windows like you say) is taken by Gnome and KDE, which are also available on FreeBSD, though being far harder to install than on Linux (look at migration to Gnome 2.10 to be convinced). Linux devs never had anything to do with the desktop (even hindering it) until recently in the 2.6 kernel (with inotify, hal, preemption, …).

The success of Linux is mainly due to the GPL, but like I said, it seems hard to admit it.

The mess in Linux the BSD camp describes could not succeed against BSD if not for the GPL license.

which might in turn eventually ease Linux further onto the desktop over time. None of the BSDs ever had any ambitions to compete with Windows in any application, so no one cared.

Same for Linux actually. The commercial distros did want to compete though (Red Hat).

Ookaze

2005-08-13 5:46 am

The cause for this BSD camp seems to fail to understand. that’s entirely because of the GPL. Without it, you think the embedded devices company would have put the code back in the kernel ?

Yes, the beloved GPL…Let me ask you something, what does an embedded Linux company do for my x86s ?

The beloved GPL is used by the hardware industry, so that they can get developers for free. They “commoditize their complements”. They really sell you hardware. Read Joel Spolsky’s Strategy Letter V.

If you’re a developer and you work on a library under the GPL, you can’t take to your next job, unless they let you. Your work is thrown away, and you must reinvent the wheel. The GPL is a product of the devotion of many a young developer who still has to face a real market. The BSD guys are older, wiser…One day, you’ll see the value of what they do…Free code is free code, regardless if someone “steals” it, as GPL fans often put it. I think the internet is a better place since OpenSSH spread all over, including proprietary OSs. Don’t you?

The reason the companies you love so much don’t like to put much money on the BSDs is because they really don’t care about Free Software. They care about Free Slave Labor.

PS: Oh, by the way, you might want to check for companies selling routers, etc, with embedded BSD. You’ll be surprised that there are some.

2005-08-13 5:09 am

Ah, the old ATT&T/BSDI reasoning. (…) The best argument I can make for the success of Linux is that the initial drive in the community to produce a free software system capable of surplanting Windows on the desktop

Fact is, a lot of people learned about Linux before UNIX history. I know I did. I read a Wired story, than got RedHat 5.2. Then I read up on the history. I understand things in a different light. After years of using Debian, my enthusiasm for Debian waned. After learning UNIX and C, my enthusiasm for BSD developed.

Here are some excerpts from Linux Magazine (“The Joy of Unix” – an interview with Bill Joy, one of BSD’s drving force at the time). I think it sheds some light on this issue:

LM: Do you see similarities between the development community and the cultural community that’s surrounding Linux right now and the community that surrounded BSD when you were developing it?

BJ: No. Our community was so small. It was Robert Elz and the people at Berkeley and the people at Bell Labs. There was one guy in Austria and one in Australia. No one else contributed much of substance that I recall.

(snip)

LM: So if it weren’t for the lawyers, we’d be called FreeBSD Magazine?

BJ: If BSD had been free, there would have been no reason to rewrite it. The new thing that happened with Linux was cultural. The Internet is now coupling people together in ways that probably couldn’t have happened before. How else would the developers have found each other?

I did my work in the era of the magnetic tape. We sent Unix in source form to thousands of people; they sent us a few hundred dollars, because I had to pay for the postage and for the printing of the manuals, and that was our network. It was a postal-age speed thing. It was not very convenient.

(snip)

LM: Is there something to the notion that the people working on BSD are more exclusive than the Linux community?

BJ: That’s an us-versus-them thing.These things just get amplified. I don’t think these people vary from each other by much. They just identify with some group, and that’s a human-nature thing.

BSD is older. It doesn’t need as much hacking. So if you’re a new person learning how to hack, BSD was not as good a place to go. It didn’t need as much work. Linux grew up with the Internet. By the time the Net came along, BSD didn’t need the same level of work and wasn’t as amenable to getting people interested in it.

When you already have several million lines of code, it’s not as much fun to work on. Linux was a great thing because it allowed a lot of people to get involved in learning about operating systems by helping to finish this system. That process of creating something is the process of creating a community.

So Linux came along at the great, perfect time in a perfect, incomplete state for lots of people to participate in. It was still small enough that people could read the code. On the other hand, BSD was already mature, and the things that needed to be done to it were hard enough that it made it difficult for any person to come and participate.

(my highlights)

2005-08-12 9:21 am

what is alternative?what do you mean by that?FreeBSD and Linux shouldn’t be compared, because everyone knows that FreeBSD or any other BSD is BETTER than crapy Linux.there are millions of articels about that BSD* is BETTER then Linux. tell me,what Linux can do,but FreeBSD can not?FreeBSD is one OS, but Linux are about 500!whos who?windoze makes noise,linux plays music, but FREEBSD ROCKS!!!

have a nice day!

2005-08-12 12:27 pm

Apple never gave back anything to Freebsd??!?!?! what do you call Darwin and OpenDarwin then?

2005-08-12 12:37 pm

This is getting old.

As a coder, I resent people trying to cram the GPL down my throat. People, this is not a religion. Use whatever you want to use when you release code, and let others get on with it.

That said, I’m pretty sure that the vocal majority of the GPL zealots don’t actually code, or release any code under any licenses period.

Prepare to be soon unemployed … personnaly I dont let myself be at the mercy of any BSD coder who try to steal me and my clients and the coders who where force to released under BSD by there employer , I buy it and switch it to GPL. I encourage everyone to do the same BTW. No point in keeping possible traitor license and greedy lazy coder from harming your business or futur business , goo look for them in your company and switch them to GPL its allowed by there license , dont forget to advise the coder you did so.

“People, this is not a religion.”

No , its called smart business , GPL code have the quality of not putting you into any kind of lock in , be it from coder or vendor. Thats why more and more company go with the GPL.

” Use whatever you want to use when you release code, and let others get on with it. ”

No , GPL it is , for everyone , this way no surprise from people who are too lazy or too greedy or to incompetent. Sorry but BSD’s does not provide the protection needed to do real business in this day and age.

Not thats its really any of your business.and some other I aint thinking of right now ( whats IRC license ?). Guess what just this week I refused a 4k easy contract because I whas asked to do it with BSD , I dont code that much anymore it whas a repeat customer , not trying to screw them and giving the best solution availaible to me as won me quite a good following , I said why and explained in detail why BSD is really bad for everyone business from now on in the long run , offered a lower price to be able to do it under the GPL , they whent looking at others and cameback.

Its my pleasure to put you and your friends out of business and into the street where you belong, because frankly thats what your trying to do to me.

Too idiot to adapt , evolution will get you or I will eventually. Your own stupidity is going to be your demise.

Well, I was hoping to to have to do this, but I can’t allow a personal attack on me. Let’s start at the beginning…

“let’s all take a step back for a moment.”

> No need for one , you know whats what or you dont. You obviously dont.

It’s painfully obvious I know more than you..

> cajunman4life I personnaly dont like readings your lies and pathetic qualification of what I say and added personnal insults , I am not making comments as you put it I am just offering the truth , and the reality of things.

I have a simple question for you, when did opinions become lies? If opinions are lies, then your tongue is “forked”…

“Now, allow me to take a more “academic” approach”

> If thats an academic aproach , The academy in your country are in serious trouble.

I’d invite you to the United States to see our “academy”… and if you’re already here, then open your eyes, you narrow-minded nitwit.

“(after all, BSD started out in the acadmeic world)”

> Bell labs , UNIX V6 , are considered an acadmy ? nice …

I didn’t say “UNIX”, I said BSD. Do you even know what BSD stands for? Apparently not… “Berkeley Software Distribution”, which, by the way, carries no AT&T (of Bell Labs as it was known) code anymore… By the way, Berkeley is in California (University of California at Berkeley)… just in case you didn’t have a clue.

“Personally, I don’t feel one is better than the other. ”

> I guess cajunman4life feelings is not an academic quality I would regard as having too much value , personnal feeling are highly subjective and differently quantifed from one another.

It makes no nevermind to me if you don’t hold a high value to my feelings… I certainly don’t for yours after your attack on me.

“While logically the BSD license gives you more “freedom” ”

> If your logic is flaud and rotten , yes , ok I would agree BSD offer more freedom Because it enable the closing of the source and remove access to the software after someone made a derivative and decided to close it to all others. Otherwise Open Source logic and spirit is never going to be in agremment with somthing that close the source and acces to a software.

I’m not sure what “flaud” is, I’m assuming you meant “flawed”, but rotten? What could give more freedom than the freedom to do what you wish, even if what you wish is take the code, close it and license it for $1,000,000 a year! People are free to do that if they wish, but it’s funny no one has…

“you can do whatever you want”

> I would really love to see for one of you to take a closed derivative and do what you whant with it legally. But no , derivative are not to be mentionned in your do what you whant world.

We’re not talking about closed derivatives here… we’re talking about software licensed under the BSD license. If it’s a closed derivative, then it’s not exactly licensed under the BSD license now is it? There, I’ve gone and nullified your argument.

“not whatever your “freedom giving” license says you can do”

> The GPL dont put restriction on the derivative as they are the same as the original , its not a traitor license everyone can really do whatever they whant with it , there is no one who is going to say : hey its my derivative you cant do this I own it, because then they would nullify there use of the entire GPL software ever produced or about to be produced. Defense of rights and freedom is the right and moral thing to do.

The derivatives don’t have to be the same as the original. If you just want to “borrow” some code, for a completely unrelated program, but it needs a portion of the functionality of program x, and program x is GPL, then you in turn have to license your code under the GPL. The BSD gives you a little more flexibility than that. But I forgot, to you, anything non-GPL is traitorous and full of lies and deceit and is an abomination to mankind.

“I’m certainly not bashing the GPL”

> No , your lying about it and distorting the truth to fit your illogical views, its worst.

I’m not lying about it… in fact, I can prove it. Go read the GPL and then come back and tell me I’m lying about it. Or… *gasp* have you not read it?!?

“I just feel that the BSD license provides more “freedom” to allow you to do *whatever* you want. ”

> Again with feeling , as soon as you can put words , definition and truthfull values behind your feelings then I will consider them as a valid argument otherwise all I can say is for now there crap.

We run into a situation again where you need to open your eyes. I have put words, definition and truthful values behind my feelings… just read what I write, not turn on your filter to get to only the parts where I “bash the GPL”…

> You absolutely got that right and then some more … because thats what you and your friends are , period.

I’m gathering that your grasp on the english language isn’t the best, but no matter. “you and your friends”… interested considering I don’t know these people, but that’s alright. If we have to align ourselves to defend your attacks, then so be it.

“but truth be told”

> You can start anytime , telling the truth , I aint got nothing forcing you to lie time after time after time.

Au contraire, I’ve been telling the truth. When will you start?

“I’m stating an opinion”

> NO an Opinion would be :” Personnaly even do your right I prefer BSD and the BSD license as thats what I like”

Thats a truthfull Opinion.

And you now have my truthful opinion (according to your definition).

” much like you.”

> Sorry , I keep my opinion for myself , as they may be twisted in order to make me look like a fool , ( hey , it happened in the past ) , now I stick with reality and the truth.

I only wish you kept your opinion to yourself. As for people twisting your words to make you look like a fool, all I can say is… we don’t have to. You are your own worst enemy.

> – Moulinneuf

Thanks Moulinneuf for your insightful words. Now go sit in the corner and think for a moment, and respond when you’re ready. Oh, and next time, when you come to a battle of wits… don’t come unprepared.

– Aaron

2005-08-12 1:31 pm

“If your logic is flaud and rotten , yes , ok I would agree BSD offer more freedom Because it enable the closing of the source and remove access to the software after someone made a derivative and decided to close it to all others. Otherwise Open Source logic and spirit is never going to be in agremment with somthing that close the source and acces to a software.”

Clearly you dont understand the BSD license at all.

Derivative’s cant close the original source or remove access to the original source. The *only* thing that can be closed is the derivative itself, nothing more nothing less.

2005-08-12 2:52 pm

Why this need to throw shit at each other? The licenses have different strenghts, and different downsides. The OSes have different strenghts and different downsides. If people used the time to help instead of fight, they could improve the OSes. This is a waste of time…

2005-08-12 3:14 pm

I’d dump one of the linux distros I have installed and replace it with BSD, except, oops. None of them are on primary partitions.* Seems a strange limitation for an OS to have nowadays.

* All my data is at the beginning of the extended partition, so shrinking it down and creating another primary isn’t really an option right now. Maybe when I get a new hard drive.

I’d dump one of the linux distros I have installed and replace it with BSD, except, oops. None of them are on primary partitions.* Seems a strange limitation for an OS to have nowadays.

Something I’ve never understood about DOS/Linux partitioning: why is more than one BIOS partition needed per OS? Or, for that matter, why is there a limit of only 4 BIOS partitions?

Which is a cleaner config:

{primary 1} linux /boot

{primary 2} windows system

{primary 3} freebsd slice

{extended}

{logical 1} linux /

{logical 2} linux /usr

{logical 3} linux /var

{logical 4} linux /home

{logical 5} linux swap

{logical 6} shared fat

{primary 1} windows

{primary 2} dragonfly slice

{subdivided into partitions}

{primary 3} freebsd slice

{subdivided into partitions}

{primary 4} shared fat

Granted, you could only have 3 OSes installed that way. But, with GPT partition tables catching on, it’s much nicer, and cleaner, to have 1 GPT partition per OS, and let the OS sub-divide that however they want. That way, if a particular OS (like Windows) doesn’t know how to handle the filesystem of another OS, they only have to deal with 1 entry in the partition table.

I hated the 4 primary partition limit and the whole “extended partition” crap since I first encountered it back in the days of triple-booting OS/2, Windows 3.x, and DOS 5/6. The Unix “1 slice per OS” method just makes sense.

2005-08-13 6:54 am

“I’d dump one of the linux distros I have installed and replace it with BSD, except, oops. None of them are on primary partitions.* Seems a strange limitation for an OS to have nowadays.”

I guess noone has felt a strong enough need to work around the retardedness of the x86 partitioning scheme.

Also, the BSD’s arent aiming to dominate the desktop market and on a server or other dedicated device this is a total non-issue.

Please, allow me to humble myself. Moulinneuf, I apologise for my attack on you earlier this morning. We both have valid points to our arguments. Let it be known that I personally use a mix of Linux and FreeBSD in my environment. Both have their independent strengths and weaknesses. While I like FreeBSD as a rock solid web server, Linux simply performs better on a multi-processor machine as a database server (however I watch with anticipation the progress of the SMPng project). Personally, I’m not too concerned with the BSD/GPL debate (though my actions show otherwise), as a programmer I am more likely to choose the BSD over the GPL as a simple solution (the GPL was written by lawyers, and as such is extremely lengthy, all for a simple program?). I often get tired of having the GPL, as someone put it earlier, crammed down my throat. But, I digress. Again Moulinneuf, accept my apology for publicly attacking you. As for everyone else in the GPL community, don’t think me an enemy. Same goes for the BSD camp. I pick and choose what I want for the different solutions I come up with.

– Aaron

2005-08-12 4:50 pm

I’m rather surprised that people manage to debate on something that is evident, and backed by facts.

It’s rather enlightening to see comments of pro-BSD licence people (I have NOTHING against them or their licence), which sometimes rely on lies, like no one of pro-BSD licence people will actually state why Linux is more successful, to the point you would think they don’t know.

Marketing? Hype about the name? No-one calls it by it’s name: GNU/Linux [since userland is GNU]. I have nothing against GPL or any other licence.

People who use the systems make the choice to agree with that. But what I don’t understand is why GPL advocates mostly have something agains the BSD licence.

2005-08-12 4:52 pm

This question do anything. You ALWAYS have the “right to expect”. Nobody can force you not to “expect”.

However, when you give something, you have the right to put conditions on the gift (that’s what BSD and GPL licenses, heck, that’s what any licenses do).

I asked him a number of posts ago to cite his sources of information. He told me HE was his source of information, calling himself an expert. Since then, he has not shown us anything backing up his claims. He had the nerve to tell me to look for the information myself.

I suggest that everyone from now on merely ignore this moron, as he obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but outright refuses to back up any of his claims. Take for instance the following:

Q: Tell us all what is in the OS X 10.4.2 kernel that is missing from darwin?

Moul’s answer: proprietary driver and modules for starter.

Alright then … the question was direct, and asked for specifics. He answered ambiguously with no real informatin. So here I am asking:

Moulinneuf, which proprietary drivers and modules are missing from XNU (the open-sourced OS X kernel)? Be specific. You obviously know something that we don’t, so please list the modules/drivers that are missing.

Now let’s all watch how he worms his way out of answering …

2005-08-12 5:00 pm

4) I beleive in teaching by example. To give without expecting anything back can encourage others to do the same, and in the end I get somethign back!

Me too. And I believe that forcing people has almost never a good result. It’s like a dead marriage in which one person forces the other to give the love back he/she gives..

2005-08-12 5:05 pm

Clearly you dont understand the BSD license at all.

Derivative’s cant close the original source or remove access to the original source. The *only* thing that can be closed is the derivative itself, nothing more nothing less.

Oh tell me, where can I find the available source of http://ftp.exe w2k is using? http://FTP.EXE: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

And about FreeBSD or Linux.. It will *both* do the job for server or workstation. 🙂

2005-08-13 6:50 am

“Oh tell me, where can I find the available source of http://ftp.exe w2k is using?”

Since it’s a derivative the source for http://ftp.exe, and whatever modifications MS made to the original BSD ftp source, arent available. You can however find the original source of BSD’s ftp in any number of ways, starting with the source arhives of the current BSD’s.

There is no comparision of FreeBSD and GNU/Linux. All the FreeBSD zealots points have been negated. It is not faster, or more stable, or have better networking, or a better programming model, or even more efficient.

They say it is a complete system, so what… Who uses an “incomplete” GNU/Linux system for tasks anyway.

FreeBSD is not even a choice anymore, it has no industry support or commercial support.

This article is pathetic a lot of the stuff is not even true, it is FUD.

Have a look there, there are 68 entities alone in North America that offer commercial solutions. Many offer support that you speak of lacking in FreeBSD. Believe it or not, there are more people/companies out there using FreeBSD than you’d like to believe.

I noticed how I was modded -1. Can someone tell me how my previous post was incorrect. If this article was published by Microsoft it would be FUD.

The prologue to this article states.

“The objective of this whitepaper is to explain some of the features and benefits provided by FreeBSD, and where applicable, compare those features to Linux.”

The article, in fact, makes no comparison of the features of GNU/Linux to the features of FreeBSD. For example the article mentions support for MAC in FreeBSD; GNU/Linux also has support for MAC in SE Linux, RSBAC Linux, and GrSec. There is no comparison made of features though between the implementations as the prologue of the article promised.

For most of the FreeBSD features, GNU/Linux also has comparable features and many of its own that FreeBSD can’t touch yet… efficiency on SMP processors, plugable schedulars, etc.

From the article…

In contrast, changes to the Linux kernel ultimately have to wait until they pass through the maintainer of kernel source, Linus Torvalds.

There are more maintainers to the kernel source than Linus Torvalds. The 2.4 source is not directly managed by Linus Torvalds. Even still there are large subsystem leaders and below them driver leaders, who make recommendations of the viability of the source-code: It is not just Linus.

Even if this statement were 100 percent true, it just goes to show how one person is more efficient that the entire FreeBSD core. Because GNU/Linux runs on way more architectures than FreeBSD and better with less bugs according to the recent Coveity analysis.

And Finally.

It also means that if you choose to use BSD licensed code in your own projects, you can do so without threat of future legal liability.

The BSD liscense is not infallible, it has been under legal scrutiny in the past. This statement encompasses Fear, Uncerntainty and Doubt. It is classic FUD.

So tell me again why I should use a hodge-podgey patchwork-quilt operating system built around a kernel and a random selection of system software that is equivalent in stability to a Jenga tower, as opposed to a fully-supported system that is distributed and developed as an entirety? Linux does not provide better stability than FreeBSD. It does not provide better security than FreeBSD. The only real thing it has going for it is that the 2.6 kernel performs better than FreeBSD 5.2.1 (I haven’t seen 5.3 or 5.4 benchmarks) in some cases. Even then, any production server should avoid 2.6 completely, as it’s still a developer’s playground.

If that is all that you have against FreeBSD, then I’m not convinced. It’s still a pleasure to work with, as opposed to the headachey Googling-for-hours-because-it-doesn’t-have-real-documentation nightmare that is Linux.

So tell me again why I should use a hodge-podgey patchwork-quilt operating system built around a kernel and a random selection of system software

Because it is better.

All of the major GNU/Linux commercial venders support the LSB.

Linux does not provide better stability than FreeBSD. It does not provide better security than FreeBSD.

It is hard to gauge stability, and because of this it is a favorite stand-by for FreeBSD zealots.

According to the Coverity automated source-code analsys reports. Linux has less bugs detected than FreeBSD, because source-code errors commonly manifest themselves in stability and security issues; it can be infered that Linux is more stable and has less security issues. A tricky reasoning at best though; atleast it can’t be infered, by a reasonable person, that because FreeBSD has more errors detected by Coverity it is more stable and more secure.

The Kernel , the softwares and the licenses , everything is better then FreeBSD and all the BSD’s and there traitor license and there pale copy and use of GNU/Linux made and paid by softwares ( xfree , X.org , KDE , Gnome , gimp , etc … ) thats why more then 1000 distribution are based of it ( Distrowatch is an incomplete list made as a personnal website following what is being submited , there list are not definitive , they dont follow half the distribution made and dont follow all the GNU/Linux distributions availaible they concentrate on the general distributions … example : http://kaella.linux-azur.org/ )

You seem to think your deserving of something and are commanding others to follow what you ask of them , you havent earned the trust , respect and loyalty of any here ( certainly not mine ) or my services may they be for free or for a fee.

I said the truth , the fact that you dont accept it and are mocking it , is irrelevant , no one , who is logical and of a sane mind , will take someone words even more from who is ashame of is own name.

You already had my answers , I stand by all of them , they are all the truth and easily verifiable on your own. The fact that you dont like them or reject them is irrelevant , nobody asked for anything from you neither your support , your aproval nor your comments and false opinions. 5 seconds is all it takes to prove you and your lying friends as false.

I am sure you will call me name so I will put the final nail in your cofins of lies , Go read this :

I specifically asked you to tell us which proprietary drivers/modules are missing from XNU. You have not answered yet. You’ve just re-hashed old statements.

Cite your sources, and provide substantial information — now.

2005-08-15 3:56 am

“GNU/Linux is better.”

An opinion is not a fact.

“The Kernel , the softwares and the licenses , everything is better then FreeBSD and all the BSD’s and there traitor license and there pale copy and use of GNU/Linux made and paid by softwares ( xfree , X.org , KDE , Gnome , gimp , etc … )”

An opinion is not a fact.

“thats why more then 1000 distribution are based of it”

Unless you can provide a complete list of those 1000 distros they dont exist.

“I said the truth”

Opinions are not facts.

“You already had my answers , I stand by all of them , they are all the truth and easily verifiable on your own.”

Your answers are opinions.

“The fact that you dont like them or reject them is irrelevant”

The fact that you dont like the BSD license is irrelevant and it doesnt make your opinions on it into facts.

> According to the Coverity automated source-code analsys reports. Linux has less bugs detected than FreeBSD, because source-code errors commonly manifest themselves in stability and security issues; it can be infered that Linux is more stable and has less security issues. A tricky reasoning at best though; atleast it can’t be infered, by a reasonable person, that because FreeBSD has more errors detected by Coverity it is more stable and more secure.

Coverity also released software defect and security vulnerability results for FreeBSD 6.0, a popular operating system (OS) that secures over 2.5 million* Internet sites. Coverity found 306 software defects in FreeBSD’s 1.2 million lines of code, or an average of 0.25 defects per 1,000 lines of code. In a December 2004 study of the Linux kernel, Coverity found 985 software defects in 5.7 million lines of code, or an average of 0.17 defects per 1,000 lines of code. Digeo and Coverity as now working together to eliminate these defects from the Linux code base.

Almost every single discussion attached to this article is pure, unadulterated bile. The sheer quantity of trolling and overzealous bickering dwarfs even the most active Apple thread, which if you’ve been paying attention, receive the most consistent amount of lunacy from the ether. The amount of time that the editorial staff would have to sink into modding down all of the trash here is sad.

The linked to article is largely unconvincing. It’s not a very compelling sell to choose FreeBSD to Linux. You could point out reasons why the few elements on the primary page are simply uncompelling, and make an argument from a position of hardware support and third-party software vendors why you would rather use Linux, Windows, or MacOS X than FreeBSD for your desktop needs. You could have an interesting discussion about recent progress in areas that are important to you, or the ways that you found FreeBSD quantifiably superior/inferior to Linux for your needs. You could have commented on the design quality of the FreeBSD kernel (it’s actually quite a bit better commented and organized than the Linux kernel, which you might find intellectually appealing if you’re interested in kernel work), or you could have commented about how easy studying the Linux kernel was for your operating systems class. I mean there were a lot of ways you could have expressed opinions without dumping all of this garbage here.

I’ll assume you are referring to Scott’s comment about “Linux being where Solaris was 8 years ago”. (That was quoted from memory, so it may not be completely accurate.)

Yes, that irritated the hell out of me at the time. But he was right. They were better at SMP at a time in which SMP was not quite so relevant. Now, Intel and AMD are releasing individual (and rather affordable) chips which are, in themselves, multi-processor in nature.

SMP is now much more relevant than it was then.

You are correct in pegging me as a Linux advocate. But please do not assume that that automatically makes me a BSD detractor.

The BSD’s will improve as the Linux distros did.

Both the BSDs and the Linux distros belong to the same community, which happens to be a meritocracy, for the most part. We’ll see what happens.

The comments from Solaris advocates toward Linux advocates were always about every little aspect of Linux that differed from Solaris over the course of many, many years. They’re now applied by Linux advocates against others, in much the same silly way. Solaris has finer locking than Linux which has finer locking than FreeBSD. So you call me when Linux is up to Solaris’s level of locking, and we’ll do lunch, ok? Or perhaps that’s just a silly dig at Linux? Yeah, that’s probably it.

The degree to which the granularity of locking in the kernel matters for the performance of any given application is relative. It can damage performance just as easily as help, and everything becomes a matter of tradeoffs. The performance tradeoffs of granular locking with respect to overall SMP performance isn’t any more relevant today that Intel and AMD are offering dual-core processors than it has been for the massively parallel systems that have been used for the last decade. The effects are much more important there than on dual-processor machines, just as they always have been. XNU has fairly coarse locking, and it has mattered little to Mac users despite years of Apple selling dual-processor Powermacs. Despite the years I’ve used Linux on dual-processor workstations, including many changes in the granularity of the locking. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter, but that glossing over the intricacies of implementation details to leverage an old Solaris insult against Linux against FreeBSD just seems a bit amusing.

How people can continue to engage in verbal diarrhea of such epic proportions. Hardly anyone here has put forth technical arguments, only arguments put forth by his holiness, Richard Stalin, who appears less militant than a lot of his rabid followers; http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

Indeed, I understand how Moulenfool & crew cannot see a future above and beyond the GPL — they will die. Someone who is bound to a specific licence rather than a broad movement is destined to become extinct. In 2030 , when news reports are reporting 2031 will be “the year of the linux desktop”, you’ll still be clinging to a licence which is only acceptable to everyone in the land of make-believe and software in bondage due to the fact that the world is not a land of make believe, you’ll still refuse to accept the facts.

Moulenfool is an egotistical prick who cannot accept the fact that there can be more than one viewpoint within a community, he is the stereotypical Frenchman from Quebec. A province which is so far in the gutter you cannot even begin to imagine, entirely because of people like him. His continued disregard for the English language tends to suggest he’s an Anglophobe, don’t argue with me, racist.

Would like another reason why Moulenfool cannot argue with me? BECAUSE I’M A BIGGER EXPERT THAN HE IS. That’s right. I have the ability to proclaim superior made up statistics and I proclaim this thread 90% retarded.

2005-08-13 12:41 pm

Let me state that BSD license in my view are not free Software and are not Open source. The FSF and OSI the certification body for both terms are in dsagreement with me , but no one can explain to me in realistic terms how can something wich can be switched to the opposite of Open Source and free software be the same as those that stay all the time Free software and Open Source. The BSD is a Traitor license as it allow the taking and restriction of the use of the code by one individual for is own purpose only , from then on your not allowed to use , modify or even look at the code.

This paper is a piece of crap , for one the BSD license is not a license , it give no usage guidelines and give absolutely no rights , its a protection clause that got called a license by some people and others since then perpetuate this lie.

1. ” Linux itself is a kernel. Distributions ”

Thats half right Linux is the name of the kernel the OS ( software Desktop and kernel ) is called GNU/Linux

“FreeBSD is a complete operating system”

No , since most of the desktop and tools they use are not from BSD. BSD based distribution is more like it.

2. there is 1 FreeBSD project with 300 small company there are over one thousand ( 1000 ) GNU/Linux distributions with over 1 million company working on GNU/Linux.

3. No , BSD is not under the BSD license :

“FreeBSD also uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.”

“The driving philosophy behind the GPL is to ensure that code remains Open Source”

No , its that it remains Free Software , Open Source happen to be one of the quality to be a free software ( as in freedom ).

“it does this by placing restrictions on the distribution of GPLd code. ”

There is no restriction on the distribution , there is enforcement from switching to another traitor license and from closing it for all others who might whant to use it after you added something to it , its called defendse of rights and freedom.

“means that many operating systems, such as Apple OS X are based on FreeBSD code. ”

Many for me and the english dictionnary means more then one …

“It also means that if you choose to use BSD licensed code in your own projects, you can do so without threat of future legal liability.”

All those BSD and Apple lawsuit are solved , no problem your honor you cant be sued for using a BSD license !!! too bad reality is otherwise. Not even SCO is dumb enough to attack the GPL in court , had it been BSD …

Funny fact is Linus Thorvalds would have considered BSD back in 1991 if it where not for the huge amount of people getting sued for using it …

This paper is a piece of crap with nothing realistic or substancial.

(what does all this mean in means the bsd sucks a ringworm infected ass)

2005-08-13 1:07 pm

“The BSD is a Traitor license as it allow the taking and restriction of the use of the code by one individual for is own purpose only , from then on your not allowed to use , modify or even look at the code.”

It’s entirely up to the developer(s) to chose whatever license they see fit, including closed ones. Who died and made you the guy in charge of making decisions for every developer on the planet?

I guess OSI and most people disagree with you simply because they have a clue.

“3. No , BSD is not under the BSD license :”

Yes it is.

“FreeBSD also uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.””

Hot damn that’s an important change. Of course, it’s a change that doesnt in any way affect the redistribution and further advancement of the source.

FreeBSD isn’t the only BSD so you can’t generalize their license addition to other BSD’s.

“There is no restriction on the distribution , there is enforcement from switching to another traitor license and from closing it for all others who might whant to use it after you added something to it , its called defendse of rights and freedom.”

No, it’s called “defense”. Enforcing the disability to switch license is a restriction. Wether it’s a good restriction or not is a different matter alltogether.

Lets repeat all together, the BSD license does not enable derivative work to close the original source or place any restriciton on the original whatsoever.

“Not even SCO is dumb enough to attack the GPL in court , had it been BSD …”

Say what?

“Funny fact is Linus Thorvalds would have considered BSD back in 1991 if it where not for the huge amount of people getting sued for using it … ”

“Huge amount” for me and the english dictionary mean more than one.

“(what does all this mean in means the bsd sucks a ringworm infected ass)”

Damn that’s witty and mature. I cant fathom why OSI and other people just aren’t taking you seriously.

2005-08-13 2:05 pm

“…there are over one thousand ( 1000 ) GNU/Linux distributions with over 1 million company working on GNU/Linux.”

According to distrowatch there are currently 386 Linux distributions. An impressive number, no doubt, but far from 1000.

2005-08-13 12:55 pm

Are all BSD users just envious, stupid bigots with nothing better to do than spread FUD and illwill around? I really have no biases as far as operating systems are concerned, other than the fact that I find Microsofts offerings much to much hassle to be worth it. However, I have to say the sheer number of BSD-zealots who can’t speak about linux users without attacking them as “zealots” or talk about the GPL without having venom and stupid FUD flying around their mouths are severe put offs..

Seriously, stuff like this

If you’re a developer and you work on a library under the GPL, you can’t take to your next job, unless they let you. Your work is thrown away, and you must reinvent the wheel. The GPL is a product of the devotion of many a young developer who still has to face a real market. The BSD guys are older, wiser…One day, you’ll see the value of what they do…Free code is free code, regardless if someone “steals” it, as GPL fans often put it.

would make me more weary of bsd idiots than the gpl, since it’s so blatantly false, ignorant and condescending. And this is hardly the first such post in this thread.. You people, if you really love your OS, shut up, lies and FUD doesn’t fly.

2005-08-13 1:12 pm

“Are all BSD users just envious, stupid bigots with nothing better to do than spread FUD and illwill around?”

You cant really make any assumptions about BSD (or Linux or Windows or Mac) users from the people who post on osnews. It’s like judging all americans based on watching WWF or all japanese men based on watching hentai.

2005-08-13 1:46 pm

Good point, too bad normal BSD users *seem* so rare.

2005-08-13 1:56 pm

As opposed to the insane ramblings by quite a few of the Linux users and/or pro-GPL people in this thread?

I’m not saying the pro-BSD license people are better, just that I cant notice any big difference in terms of vitriolic statements, here or in other threads.

I think we all recognize Linux is huge right now, but I really hate the fact that Linux fanboys have no respect for the BSD history or license.

So, more and more we have free UNIXes (BSDs, 500 Linux distros, and now OpenSolaris). Linux is UNIX, which is fact some Linux programmers forget entirely, by bringing non-portable features (which simply means: badly crafted software – doesn’t understand UNIX).

Linux gets a lot of hype BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL PR DEPARTMENTS FROM CORPORATIONS

Don’t you know that PRs feed the press? Jesus, how naive.

But, regardless, I think the facts speak for themselves: the security track record of OpenBSD is unmatched; the security features that are being designed in TrustedBSD (eg, capabilites, ACL, MACs) is unmatched to be seen on Linux on the short term; the number of ports on FreeBSD beats most linux distros; and NetBSD has – literally – achieved Runs In the Toaster status – a team of proven superior craftsmanship with a huge list of supported platforms.

I still have Debian running, but its death has already been programmed. I do not care for it anymore, I do not care about the empty promisses. RedHat betrayed a huge user base, SuSE is lacking in many things, Debian has become a bad joke, Slackware in unprofessional, Gentoo is badly emulating the BSDs.

In these last 7 years, I’ve grown weary of Linux distros, their messy development model, and their lack of methodology. I don’t mean to generalize, people like RedHat have learned to be very professsional, even though they made terrible decisions in the past, but it’s just not the way software should be developed. Look at code, very clean code on OpenBSD, for instance.

2005-08-13 7:44 pm

Let me state that BSD license in my view are not free Software and are not Open source. The FSF and OSI the certification body for both terms are in dsagreement with me , but no one can explain to me in realistic terms how can something wich can be switched to the opposite of Open Source and free software be the same as those that stay all the time Free software and Open Source. The BSD is a Traitor license as it allow the taking and restriction of the use of the code by one individual for is own purpose only , from then on your not allowed to use , modify or even look at the code.

This paper is a piece of crap , for one the BSD license is not a license , it give no usage guidelines and give absolutely no rights , its a protection clause that got called a license by some people and others since then perpetuate this lie.

1. ” Linux itself is a kernel. Distributions ”

Thats half right Linux is the name of the kernel the OS ( software Desktop and kernel ) is called GNU/Linux

“FreeBSD is a complete operating system”

No , since most of the desktop and tools they use are not from BSD. BSD based distribution is more like it.

2. there is 1 FreeBSD project with 300 small company there are over one thousand ( 1000 ) GNU/Linux distributions with over 1 million company working on GNU/Linux.

3. No , BSD is not under the BSD license :

“FreeBSD also uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.”

“The driving philosophy behind the GPL is to ensure that code remains Open Source”

No , its that it remains Free Software , Open Source happen to be one of the quality to be a free software ( as in freedom ).

“it does this by placing restrictions on the distribution of GPLd code. ”

There is no restriction on the distribution , there is enforcement from switching to another traitor license and from closing it for all others who might whant to use it after you added something to it , its called defendse of rights and freedom.

“means that many operating systems, such as Apple OS X are based on FreeBSD code. ”

Many for me and the english dictionnary means more then one …

“It also means that if you choose to use BSD licensed code in your own projects, you can do so without threat of future legal liability.”

All those BSD and Apple lawsuit are solved , no problem your honor you cant be sued for using a BSD license !!! too bad reality is otherwise. Not even SCO is dumb enough to attack the GPL in court , had it been BSD …

Funny fact is Linus Thorvalds would have considered BSD back in 1991 if it where not for the huge amount of people getting sued for using it …